|
Meeting: |
Executive Member for Transport Decision Session |
|
Meeting date: |
19 July 2024 |
|
Report of: |
James Gilchrist, Director of Transport, Environment and Planning |
|
Portfolio of: |
Cllr Ravilious Executive Member for Transport |
Decision Report:
Response to the Petition
to Improving Cycling facilities on Wentworth Road
Subject of Report
2. This report puts forward potential options to address the issue to which the petition refers, namely the provision of secure on-street cycle parking for residential use (Cycle Hangar) and the pros and cons of those options.
Benefits and Challenges
3. Whilst the provision of secure on-street residential cycle parking for the residents of Wentworth Street, in the form of a Cycle Hangar, would make a positive contribution towards several of the council’s long-term strategies, there is a question to be asked as to whether this should be delivered in isolation (if feasible) or whether it would be better dealt with as part of a city-wide review of cycle parking provision. Work is already underway investigating potential improvements to city centre cycle parking using Active Travel Funding and potential improvements to the secure cycle parking at the various Park & Ride sites are also being explored as part of the city’s Bus Service Improvement Plan. In order to tie up the various cycle parking strands and to ensure we roll out standardised solutions across the city these ongoing pieces of work will be brought together under the umbrella of a city-wide review. The review will determine the most appropriate cycle parking solution for different scenarios, including within residential areas.
4. The following options for dealing with this request are therefore:
Option A1 - Explore provision of a standalone cycle hangar for Wentworth Road residents.
Option A2 – Exploreprovision of a standalone cycle hangar by the Wentworth Road residents under licence from the Council.
Option B - Explore a city-wide solution for residential on-street cycle parking as part of a city-wide review of cycle parking.
Option C – Do nothing.
Policy Basis for Decision
5. The provision of public cycle storage would support the following council objectives:
· Council Plan, One City for all, 2023 to 2027 – Priority D - Transport: Sustainable, accessible transport for all - change the way we move through and around the city, prioritising sustainable transport and discouraging non-essential vehicle journeys.
· York Climate Change Strategy 2022-2032 – Objective 3.2 – Increase take-up of active travel, reduce overall car usage through alternative modes of transport, public transport and car-sharing.
· Joint Health & Wellbeing Strategy 2022-2032 – Big Goal 5 – Reverse the rise in the number of children and adults living with an unhealthy weight, Big Goal 9 – Reduce sedentary behaviour, so that 4 in every 5 adults in York are physically active.
· York Economic Strategy 2022-2032 – a greener economy – increase cycling and active travel to work where appropriate as modes of commuting, along with increased safe cycle parking provision.
· Emerging Local Transport Strategy – supports the following key themes.
· Improve walking, wheeling and cycling,
· Shape healthy places,
· Safeguard our environment by cutting carbon, air pollution and noise,
· Manage York's transport networks for Movement and Place,
· Reduce car dependency.
Financial Strategy Implications
6. There are no financial implications associated with Option C.
There are financial implications for all other options. Option A1 would incur an upfront cost of approx £5k with an ongoing administrative burden. Option B is likely to be a significant cost, it would however be based upon consultation, research and ultimately an adopted policy.
Option A1 would cost approx £5000 (plus the cost of the Traffic Regulation Order change required for the alterations to the RESPARK) but could have abortive costs associated with it further down the line if a city-wide secure on-street residential cycle parking scheme is rolled out which is different from this stand-along scheme.
Option A2 would have the cost of the Traffic Regulation Order change required for the alterations to the RESPARK and the Licensing process for the location of the private hangar on adopted highway and, maintenance and upkeep would need to be conditioned as part of this licensing. There may future management of the situation of this private hangar required, if a city-wide secure on-street residential cycle parking scheme is rolled out.
Option B would require funding to undertake the review and investigate the feasibility of providing different types of cycle parking in different scenarios. The proposed solutions which the review will put forward will require significant levels of funding to deliver which could form part of a bid to the newly elected combined authority Mayor.
Recommendation and Reasons
7. The Following actions are recommended to the Executive Member for Transport:
· Acknowledge receipt of the petition, and its request to improve cycling facilities on Wentworth Road.
· Acknowledge that whilst some residents of Wentworth Road are keen to see the provision of a cycle hangar (even as a standalone one-off) there would still be processes to go through to deliver this option in terms of consulting other residents on Wentworth Road and changes required to the street’s Traffic Regulation Order to enable the change of use from vehicular to cycle parking.
· Approve Option B –Commission a city-wide review of secure cycle storage options to identify the most appropriate solutions for different locations and contexts which can then be adopted as council policy and influence future projects.
· That the outputs of the above review be adopted as part of the Local Transport Strategy, Local Transport Plan and LCWIP.
8. Reasons: To support the request to improve cycling facilities on Wentworth Road, whilst acknowledging the need to have a consistent city-wide approach and policy.
Background
9. A petition was submitted to City of York Council on 11th March 2024, titled “Improving Cycling facilities on Wentworth Road”, the petition received 12 signatures and provided a covering statement as follows:
“The Covid 19 pandemic has changed how we live, travel and work. We want our streets to have more safe space for everyone to walk and cycle, for children to get to and from school safely and healthily, for businesses to be able to flourish, to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles, and for us all to be breathing cleaner air.
We want to support greener, healthier travel, whether it’s an essential journey like taking the children to school, getting to work, or just popping out to the shops. We know that a lack of somewhere covered and secure to keep bicycles can discourage people from cycling. We want to help as many people as we can to cycle if they want to.
We, the undersigned, would welcome the opportunity to trial a bicycle storage hangar on Wentworth Road. We would be willing to reduce car parking space on the street to accommodate this.”
10. Cycle hangars have been rolled out widely in several London Boroughs and in other Local Authority areas as a means of providing secure cycle parking for properties where there isn’t suitable space for households to park their cycles securely. In most cases the hangars themselves are purchased and installed by the local authority, a third party (sometimes the supplier of the hangars) then deals with administration of the scheme in terms of dealing with applications and taking payments, the third party also usually deal with the cycle hangar’s ongoing maintenance.
Consultation Analysis
11. No consultation has taken place thus far.
Options Analysis and
Evidential Basis
12. Options A1 & A2 - explore provision of a standalone cycle hangar for Wentworth Road residents. The advantage of this option is that it would address the specific request made in the petition. The main disadvantage is that cycle hangars may not be the option which is ultimately chosen for city-wide roll-out. If this was the case, then there will be abortive costs associated with having to switch the Wentworth Road cycle hangar to another option to ensure the council are only running one type of scheme across the city. Cycle hangar suppliers may also be less willing to set up the necessary back-office system for only one hangar.
13. Option B - Explore a city-wide solution for residential on-street cycle parking as part of a city-wide review of cycle parking. The main advantage of this option is that it would give the Council the opportunity to consult on options across the city and gather information on the long-term implications of a chosen solution or suite of solutions. It would also help to tie up other projects being delivered through other workstreams into one council-wide policy. Having a holistic over-arching cycle parking policy will also provide background evidence and justification for bids for future funding. The disadvantages of this option are that it will inevitably hold up the provision of any secure on-street cycle parking for Wentworth Road residents and that it will have much higher costs associated with the project as the scope will be much wider.
14. Option C – Do nothing. The only advantage of this option is that no funding is required. The disadvantage is that the request for provision of secure on-street cycle parking is turned down and several different cycle parking solutions are delivered in isolation with no over-arching policy to steer them.
Organisational
Impact and Implications
15. The following implications have been identified:
· Financial - Option A1 would incur an upfront cost of approx £5k with an ongoing administrative burden. Option B, whilst likely to be a significant cost, would be based upon consultation, research and ultimately an adopted policy.
Local Transport Plan Capital fund could be used to purchase the storage, but we need to fully understand who would be responsible for maintenance and cleaning of the storage on ongoing basis. Whether this would be the responsibility of the supplier or CYC? How this would be funded? It would require a set aside Revenue budget within Transport to cover future operational costs.
· Human Resources (HR) - it is unlikely that additional internal staff resource would be required to take this forward, and the management of the project can be absorbed into existing workloads.
· Legal - In Options A1, A2 and B there would be a requirement to change the Traffic Regulation Orders.
The Highways Act 1980 permits the council to place objects or structures on a highway for the purposes of providing a service for the benefit of the public, or a section of the public.
Option A2 will require licensing agreements to allow a third party to install hangars on the highway. S115E gives the Highway Authority power to licence and regulate items placed on the highway (as defined by section115A of the Highways Act 1980).
· Procurement - For both Options A1 and B there would be procurement implications with Option A1 needing 3 quotes and Option B needing to go out to tender.
· Health and Wellbeing - Options A1/A2 would provide some benefits but only to a very small pool of residents, Option B has the capability of providing the same type of benefits but over a much bigger proportion of residents. ‘Cycle storage facilities have been shown to increase the acceptability and uptake of cycling as an active travel method, which has health and wellbeing benefits in terms of increased levels of physical activity, and is in line with the city’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy 20222-2032’
· Environment and Climate action - Options A1/A2 would provide relatively minimal benefits, whilst Option B has the capability of providing more significant benefits with widespread improvements to cycling facilities which will encourage more people to cycle and reduce car dependency with consequential benefits to congestion, air quality and carbon emissions.
· Affordability - Option A could be addressed within current funding availability/allocation; Option B would require funding for both the exploration of the city-wide solution and the implementation of the outcome.
· Equalities and Human Rights - The Council recognises, and needs to take into account its 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 authorities functions).
The recommended option allows for the requirement of The Equality Act to be duly considered. During this option an Equality Impact Assessment will be both created and updated (and used to inform) during the process.
· Data Protection and Privacy - At this stage it is not considered that there will be implications, but this position will be reviewed as the recommended option progresses.
· Communications – This proposal is part of the longer-term ambition for the city’s transport network. Communications will support the consultation dependent on option chosen, demonstrating how the proposal is part of our journey to a healthier, more sustainable and better-connected city.
· Economy - Option A would have very little benefit to the economy whilst option B can have significant benefit.
Risks and
Mitigations
16. Option A - Explore the provision of a standalone cycle hangar for Wentworth Road residents.
Risk: Cycle hangars may not necessarily be the chosen option for a city-wide solution. If this were to be the case then there could be abortive costs associated with having to switch from one type of cycle parking (or supplier) to another.
Mitigation: Research options for relocating the hangar elsewhere in the city if a different solution is adopted in the future.
17. Option B - Explore a city-wide solution for residential on-street cycle parking as part of a city-wide review of cycle parking.
Risks: Consultation on options across the city and the gathering of information on the long-term implications of that chosen solution or suite of solutions might not generate an acceptable solution. This is going to be a more costly option therefore existing funding will not be sufficient.
Mitigation: Early fact gathering to prevent abortive work. Find a suitable source of funding for both the review and future roll-out of measures.
Wards Impacted
18. Options A1 & A2 - Micklegate Ward
Option B - All Wards
Contact details
For further information please contact the authors of this Decision Report.
Author
|
Name: |
James Gilchrist |
|
Job Title: |
Director of Transport, Environment and Planning |
|
Service Area: |
PLACE |
|
Telephone: |
01904 552547 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
09/07/2024 |
Co-author
|
Name: |
Tom Horner |
|
Job Title: |
Head of Active and Sustainable Transport |
|
Service Area: |
PLACE |
|
Telephone: |
07394 844349 |
|
Report approved: |
Yes |
|
Date: |
09/07/2024 |
Annexes
· Annex A: Petition