|
Subject: |
Active Travel Fund |
|||
|
Date of Meeting: |
21 July 2021 |
|||
|
Report of: |
Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture |
|||
|
Contact Officer: |
Name: |
Mark Prior |
Tel: |
01273 292474 |
|
|
Email: |
|||
|
Ward(s) affected: |
All |
|||
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND POLICY CONTEXT
1.1 At the Special Environment, Transport and Sustainability (ETS) Committee meeting on 18 December 2020, the Committee agreed to undertaking a consultation on the proposed Active Travel Fund schemes, for which £2.37m of government funding has been received.
1.2 This report outlines the consultation exercise undertaken on four of the Active Travel Fund schemes (Western Road, A23, A259 Fourth Avenue to Glendor Road, and Old Shoreham Road) and recommends proposals for the next steps of these schemes.
1.3 Nationally, government released their ‘Gear Change’ vision document in July 2020 which sets out the national ambition to make walking and cycling the natural choice for short journeys, or as part of a longer journey. Accompanying this is Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN 1/20) which sets out a step change in how Local Authorities must deliver cycling improvements. To qualify for government funding, not only on active travel schemes but all transport improvement schemes, Local Authority schemes must adhere to the design principles set out in LTN 1/20, which among other things sets out the need to design cycle networks along direct routes and to physically separate cyclists from both traffic and pedestrians.
1.4 Locally, the new Local Transport Plan 5 (LTP5) is being developed to help everyone move around the City more safely, sustainably, and easily. The initial direction of travel document (‘Developing a new Transport Plan for Brighton & Hove’) was presented to the ETS Committee on 22 June 2021 and the Committee agreed to the vision, key outcomes and principles set out in this. One of the key principles is shifting how people travel – prioritising walking and cycling for shorter journeys and public transport for longer journeys. The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) is in development and the draft strategic network identifies many strategic and priority routes, including all the routes being taken forward in the Active Travel Fund. The LCWIP will set out the strategic network for walking and cycling and will assist the Council in seeking funding for improvements.
1.5 In addition, the Council has committed to being net carbon neutral by 2030, the Carbon Neutral Programme identifies the transport sector for the largest share of the required cut in carbon emissions in the City, and includes a key action to develop a public realm which enables active travel.
1.6 Recommendations of the recent citizens’ Climate Assembly noted a representative group of residents’ own suggestions for improvement. These included ‘cyclists should be prioritised over cars through well-designed cycle networks that are safe and practical for day-to-day use as well as leisure’, the ‘creation of healthier low traffic/pedestrianised communities’ and to ‘introduce a park and ride to minimise car use in the City’.
1.7 Therefore, the purpose of this report and recommendations is to report on the results of the Active Travel Fund schemes consultation and assist in delivering active travel schemes which achieve both national and local outcomes.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.2 That the Committee agrees to the preliminary design for the A23 scheme (presented in Appendix 7), to initiate further discussion with key stakeholders to inform design development, to progress the development of designs, to undertake further public consultation and return to a future ETS Committee with detailed design recommendations on the A23 scheme.
2.3 That the Committee agrees to progress a trial Park & Ride site at Mill Road from Summer 2022, working with Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company.
2.5 That the Committee agrees not to proceed with the Phase 2 Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lane proposals at this stage.
2.6 That the Committee agrees to proceed with the proposed pedestrian crossing improvements to Old Shoreham Road at Newtown Road and Hove Park as set out in Appendix 8.
2.7 That the Committee agrees not to proceed at this stage with the proposals for Nevill Road, Windlesham Close, Weald Avenue and Stapley Road (access restrictions).
2.8 That the Committee agrees to progress the development of improvements to the Phase 1 Seafront A259 temporary westbound cycle lane (from West Street to Fourth Avenue) as an experimental scheme, including to disabled parking, as set out in Appendix 10, and to undertake continued monitoring.
2.9 That the Committee agrees to proceed with the proposals for Phase 2 of the Seafront (A259) temporary westbound cycle lane and proposals to introduce an experimental traffic scheme on King’s Esplanade (and adjoining roads), as set out in Appendix 11.
2.10 That the Committee agrees to officers progressing with the Active Travel Fund 2021/22 bid to the Department for Transport (DfT), to secure future funding for schemes including consideration of Marine Parade, Old Town, A23 and Old Shoreham Road, as well as consideration of a ‘Mini-Hollands’ proposal for the City.
2.11 That the Committee notes the summary of the Active & Inclusive Travel Forum to date as set out in Appendix 16.
3. CONTEXT/ BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 As outlined in Section 1, the Government published its Gear Change Cycling Strategy and Cycle Infrastructure Design Guidance (LTN 1/20) last year. Active Travel Funding was made available to help local authorities in beginning to implement this. The Council submitted its bid for Tranche 2 of the Active Travel Fund in early August 2020. On 13 November 2020, government announced that Brighton & Hove City Council had been successful in securing £2,376,000; 100% of its indicative allocation.
3.2 The grant requirements state that pre-consultation must take place on schemes. A Consultation Plan setting out the Council’s approach to the Active Travel Fund consultation was presented to and agreed by the ETS Committee on 18 December 2020. This Consultation Plan has been followed in carrying out the public consultation on four of the schemes, which ran from 1 February to 14 March 2021. A fifth Active Travel Fund scheme, Madeira Drive, was not consulted on with the other schemes as this is under a separate Experimental Traffic Order (ETRO) process.
3.3 From June to December 2020, a public feedback survey was put in place via the Council’s website, in order to collect feedback in a consistent way on the Tranche 1 Emergency Active Travel Fund schemes, which were put in place within weeks of the government instruction to Local Authorities in May 2020.
3.4 The responses to the feedback survey are shown in Appendix 14; however, due to it not being a formal consultation, there was the opportunity for multiple responses which had the potential for abuse. The survey was also reactive and not proactive, i.e. not like a formal consultation where communications and postal materials would be focused on the areas around the scheme(s). The survey results have been utilised for the capturing of feedback which has informed scheme designs, as well as informing officers’ approach to the formal consultation on some of the Tranche 1 schemes and others, which formed the Active Travel Fund formal consultation from February to March 2021.
3.5 A feature of the 2020 public feedback survey responses was that there was a large influx of responses once the survey opened, which then greatly reduced over time. This high number of responses in the early weeks of these schemes correlates with a settling down period, often seen when changes are made to the highway and road users are taking time to get used to a new layout. This is particularly true for temporary schemes that are put in place quickly.
3.6 The LCWIP is in development for the City and will be consulted on in autumn 2021. The draft strategic cycling network has been developed, building on an evidence base suggested by government as well as stakeholder input. All of the five Active Travel Fund routes feature in the draft LCWIP strategic network as priority routes to be taken forward. This means that these routes are identified as having the most strategic benefit to the City in terms of their potential to increase cycling levels, based on a number of factors including the national Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT). Having the LCWIP in place will enable the Council to seek funding for improvements, which will then be looked into further with detailed design proposals.
3.7 The government has recently identified a further funding source via the Active Travel Fund for 2021/22, where Local Authorities are likely to receive similar amounts to that received in 2020/21 (£2.37m for BHCC). See Appendix 15 for further details in the letter from DfT. Funding can be for any stage of feasibility or design, and work must be completed by April 2023. Bids must be submitted to DfT by 9 August 2021. It is proposed that schemes to be considered for this funding bid include:
· Marine Parade A259 – permanent scheme to introduce a cycle lane, tying in with the Valley Gardens Phase 3 scheme at Palace Pier roundabout.
· Old Town – making temporary improvements, introduced as part of initial Covid-19 transport response measures, permanent in order to provide wider active travel benefits.
· A23 – feasibility study on improvements to the section between Valley Gardens and Preston Park (including Stanford Avenue / Beaconsfield Road).
· Old Shoreham Road – funding for permanent improvements, to continue the ‘stepped track’ (currently in place from The Drive to Dyke Road), from The Drive to Hangleton Road, including junction improvements, in order to bring wider benefits for this section for cyclists, pedestrians and buses. Visualisations for what a future permanent scheme could look like on Old Shoreham Road have been included in Appendix 9.
3.8 The letter from DfT also invites Local Authorities to submit expressions of interest for a Mini-Hollands[1] scheme, building on the successes of three pilot areas in London. Officers are working up proposals to be included in the Expression of Interest, building on the evidence base of the LCWIP.
3.9 The Council has now set up the Active & Inclusive Travel Forum for the City, a forum to collaborate with partners on active & inclusive travel. The forum has had two meetings, in March and July 2021, and a summary of the forum so far is included in Appendix 16.
4. ACTIVE TRAVEL FUND CONSULTATION
Consultation summary
4.1 The public consultation ran from 1 February to 14 March 2021 during a period of Covid-19 national lockdown with associated restrictions on travel and social mixing. Results may have been influenced by this as non-essential travel was severely limited. Post lockdown travel mode could have been in a state of change for many respondents. Any references to pre-pandemic travel and current (at the time of the survey) travel or behaviour are therefore indicative only.
4.2 Information packs were posted to 7,189 addresses in roads immediately surrounding each of the four schemes. In addition, 18,091 postcards were sent to wider areas. In both cases, respondents were invited to complete a survey online. An email address and an answerphone message were available to request paper copies of the questionnaire (also in large print) and to enquire about a translation service.
4.3 The consultation was also promoted by the Council’s communications team using the Council website, local printed press, and social media campaigns. In addition, the consultation was promoted to local interest groups via email. Focus groups / workshops were also held with both interested groups and stakeholder groups.
Consultation survey feedback – Introduction
4.4 In total, 4,695 responses were received to the consultation survey, from 4,405 individual households, with multiple members of many households making individual submissions. As context in relation to other consultations, for the most recent Valley Gardens phase 3 project consultation, the number of public consultation responses received was 463.
4.5 Overall, the response rate from households who received promotional materials by post was 6.4%. Of the 1,618 respondents within the mail out areas, 1,022 (63.2%) said that they heard about the consultation via the information leaflet or postcard that they had received. Overall, for survey respondents, the highest single response was that 37% of respondents became aware of the consultation via social media. Social media is fast becoming the most popular way of hearing about consultations as details are easily shared and promoted.
4.6 Respondents over 45 (but under 75), those identifying as disabled, and car drivers, are over-represented when compared to 2011 census data, whereas younger people are under-represented. Schools were in lockdown and largely closed to pupils during the consultation period so opportunities to engage directly with schools/ pupils were unfortunately limited. The above needs to be taken into account when reviewing the findings of the survey.
Public opinion survey – Summary
4.7 The first section of the consultation survey was a general public opinion survey, featuring a range of questions taken from DfT guidance document for Local Authorities carrying out Active Travel Fund surveys. This allowed the Council to gather information on the wider context of travel behaviour and opinions.
4.8 The following provides headline results from the public opinion survey (full results are outlined in Appendix 1):
· Respondents were asked about their travel habits both pre pandemic and currently (February - March 2021). Responses suggested how things may have shifted over the course of last year, though travel behaviour is in a state of change due to the national lockdown and post-lockdown recovery. (Appendix 1, Table 4.1.2/3)
· Regular travelling in the City[2] has decreased when comparing responses between pre pandemic travel and current travel, reflecting lockdowns and the need to work from home where possible.
· In terms of active travel use since the pandemic, almost a third of respondents have switched some of their short journeys from car or van to walking and cycling; with a large number of respondents using active travel for leisure journeys as fewer journeys to work and other destinations are being made – the survey showed that 53% of respondents are working from home or working from home more than prior to the pandemic. (Appendix 1, Table 4.1.5)
· When compared to car and van ownership levels for the City from the 2011 census, there was an over representation of car owners responding to this consultation. (Appendix 1, Table 4.1.1)
· Respondents rated the condition of pavements in their local area as poor or very poor across all areas of the City. (Appendix 1, Table 4.3.1)
· 50.2% of respondents support or strongly support reallocating road space to walking or cycling in their local area. (Appendix 1, Table 4.3.6)
· When asked whether the Council should be taking action to improve conditions in certain categories, across all four of these (air quality, traffic noise traffic congestion and road safety), over 50% of respondents agree or strongly agree that the Council should act. The area which most respondents agree with is to improve road safety (78.2%). Respondents were less concerned with action to reduce traffic noise (56.1%). (Appendix 1, Table 4.3.4)
5. WESTERN ROAD
Scheme proposals – Western Road
5.1 The proposals included in the consultation for Western Road aim to bring benefits for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, as well as help in rejuvenating the street and supporting businesses. The proposals were:
· A resurfaced road and pavements between the Clock Tower and Montpelier Road.
· Improved pedestrian crossings.
· Greater priority for pedestrians crossing at side roads.
· Simplified road layout.
· Improvements for cyclists at junctions.
· Improved junctions at Dyke Road and Clock Tower.
Consultation survey results – Western Road
5.2 2,680 responses were received to the Western Road questions. These responses highlight a large number of current issues experienced by respondents when using Western Road, as well as providing feedback on the proposals. The full responses in Appendix 1 should therefore be referred to; however, an overview of the most common responses is provided below.
5.3 There is dissatisfaction with the current conditions for cycling with cyclists giving an average satisfaction score of 3.8 out of 10. However, there is a large difference from the score given by drivers who gave cycling conditions a score of 6.1. (Appendix 1, Figure 5.1.20)
5.4 The walking environment received an average satisfaction score of 5.5 out of 10. This was largely consistent across all user groups with car drivers giving a slightly more favourable average score of 6.3. (Appendix 1, Figure 5.1.11)
5.5 The most common current issues noted by respondents in the survey were safety and limited facilities for cyclists, difficulty crossing the road as pedestrians and bus users, inconsiderate parking and the condition of the road and pavements. (Appendix 1, Table 5.1.4)
5.6 Almost three quarters of respondents (73.2%) said they feel safe walking during the day in Western Road; however, this fell to under a third of respondents (31.8%) after dark. (Appendix 1, Table 5.1.12) This is supported by respondents’ comments, which tend to focus on wider issues in the City centre environment, rather than travelling in / through the area. The most common improvements respondents would like to see were more trees and planting, improved pedestrian crossings (especially at Churchill Square and the Clock Tower), provision of cycle facilities and reduced anti-social behaviour. (Appendix 1, Table 5.1.7)
5.7 The proposals were generally positively received. This was true for those with disabilities and those without, and across respondents using a variety of modes in the area. The most common comments raised were requests for further improvements for cyclists, followed by comments relating to the number of buses and suggestions these should be reduced or rerouted. Other common issues raised included the cleanliness of the area, anti-social behaviour and requests to further limit private vehicles and/or pedestrianise the City centre. (Appendix 1, Table 5.2.1/2/3)
5.8 Paragraphs 5.15 to 5.19 and Table 1 outline how the designs have responded to the issues raised and feedback received where possible.
Stakeholder workshop / focus group feedback – Western Road
5.9 As part of the consultation, officers organised stakeholder workshops which local groups and organisations were invited to. A summary of feedback provided is included in Appendix 2 with design responses provided in Table 1.
5.10 The responses generally reflect those to the general consultation but with more detail provided on specific issues. This includes representations from cycle groups highlighting the need to improve cycle safety with some requesting dedicated space for cyclists, particularly around Churchill Square. Disability groups have made more general requests for additional disabled parking in the City centre, although the Western Road proposals do not impact on current disabled parking spaces. Brighton & Hove Buses support the expected benefits of the proposals for bus journey times; however, expressed a desire to retain bus stop capacity in Churchill Square with concern at crossing improvements which would reduce this.
5.11 Focus groups were also held in order to gather feedback, these were held with younger people, older people and disabled people. Feedback again generally reflected the general survey / workshop feedback, with pavement and crossing improvements particularly welcomed by disabled people. Clearer information was requested for bus passengers and the issue of street clutter highlighted.
Monitoring – Western Road
5.12 A permanent traffic counter is located on Western Road near Waitrose. Because of traffic restrictions further east, this is the busiest point along the street for general traffic. The counter provides long-term general traffic data from before the pandemic. Typically, this averaged approximately 6,000 vehicles per day (two way, 6am to 10pm) before the pandemic.
5.13 The pandemic has disrupted the ability to get neutral data for other modes; however, cycle counts were collected over a two week period in April-May 2021, recording approximately 860 cyclists per day on average (two way, 6am to 10pm). Additionally, pedestrian crossing surveys and junction turning counts have been completed to inform the detailed design.
5.14 Officers plan to replicate these surveys following the implementation of the scheme. Monitoring periods will be consistent with DfT guidance. See Appendix 3 for the monitoring report.
Conclusion – Western Road
5.15 The scheme proposals have been developed further since the consultation, building on feedback raised. The preliminary designs and an artist’s impression of what the scheme could look like are provided in Appendix 5 and 6. The main features of the design are:
· Simplification of the road layout with a central strip provided to help with informal pedestrian crossing. Other pedestrian crossings would be retained and improved.
· Pavement widening either side of the informal crossing between Imperial Arcade and Churchill Square, shown on the image in Appendix 6. This is designed to reduce the crossing distance and make it easier to cross between buses.
· Removal of Clarence Square bus stops. This is because they are very close to Churchill Square, it will help provide additional pavement space and speed up buses.
· Relocation of westbound Waitrose bus stop to near the junction with Sillwood Road. This is in order to create a simpler approach to the junction with Montpelier Road.
· Additional cycle parking, seating and tree planting.
· New loading bay opposite Sillwood Road.
5.16 Table 1 summarises how these proposals respond to the main comments received in the consultation. The designs aim to respond to the main issues raised. The nature of the street where there is high demand from pedestrians, cyclists and buses, as well for loading and space available means there is a need for compromise to accommodate the needs of all users. Implementing some of the requests in full are likely to have a negative impact on other users and/or mean the scheme is not able to meet the project objectives.
5.17 Consideration also needs to be given to the purpose of the funding with the majority for this project coming from the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund. This is primarily for resurfacing of the carriageway and footways. Similarly, the Active Travel Fund is for improvements to walking and cycling. Responses to stakeholder requests therefore need to take account of this and the overall budget available.
5.18 The scheme does not at this stage include restrictions to traffic on additional side roads, such as Preston Street and Dean Street. This will require further investigation in terms of the impact of vehicle diversions and additional measures which may be required on other roads. It is recommended that this be progressed as a separate project. The timing of construction for Western Road could be phased, for example, with the junctions of side roads which may be left until later in the programme.
Table 1: Design response to feedback – Western Road
|
Consultation feedback |
Design response |
|
Request for segregated cycle facilities |
A cycle lane concept design has been considered. However, this would be relatively narrow. In addition, for it to be continuous, pedestrian islands would need to be removed and pavements narrowed in some areas. Given the very high footfall in this location and high demand for pedestrian crossings, this was not considered appropriate in this location.
In response to some stakeholder comments, a revised option focusing on widening of footways was considered with no central crossing area. The disadvantage of this option was that there would be a less noticeable change to the feel of the street. It would again disadvantage pedestrians by removing frequent crossing points and encourage higher speeds.
Officers acknowledge the desire for segregated cycle facilities through Churchill Square. However, the area in front of Churchill Square forecourt is private land and it would not be possible to extend into this area within the budget or programme for this project. This would significantly impact on bus stop capacity with no alternative locations identified. This is very likely to introduce more problems with queuing and overlapping buses which is itself not desirable for cyclists.
Overall, the Western Road scheme will provide a benefit for cyclists by reducing the dominance of road space, encouraging low speeds and providing a smoother road surface. It incorporates the latest government guidance on lane widths and reducing pinch points for cyclists.
The complexity of the location and addressing conflicting challenges has been acknowledged by stakeholders. |
|
Request for more cycle parking, including around Churchill Square |
The designs identify an opportunity to double the number of cycle parking stands and better locate these close to key destinations. The exact sites and number of stands will be subject to detailed design. |
|
Request to provide additional BTN Bikeshare hub |
The design would allocate space for this close to Churchill Square where there is currently a gap in cycle hire provision. Delivery of a new hub would be subject to a separate process and approvals. |
|
Request to open Air Street and/or the Clock Tower quadrant for cycling to improve the left turn from the Clock Tower to Queens Road |
The Clock Tower quadrant was closed to traffic several years ago. Consideration has been given to options for routing cyclists through this area; however, this would introduce cyclists into a busy area for pedestrians and is deemed to cause a greater problem than it solves. Air Street is not considered to be desirable for the same reason and government guidance (LTN 1/20) now advises cyclists are kept separate from pedestrians.
However, the intention is to provide cycle priority at junctions which will help cyclists to negotiate this difficult left turn in advance of vehicles. |
|
Removing traffic islands / chicane could cause an increase in speeding |
The design will provide a central area to help pedestrians cross. The design is intended to reduce the dominance of vehicle traffic and encourage low speeds. |
|
Concern at impact of improving the pedestrian crossings opposite Churchill Square on capacity for buses at bus stops |
There is a need to improve pedestrian crossings with surveys showing very high demand at present (surveys in April 2021 recorded approximately 9,000 pedestrians crossing on a weekday and 14,000 on a Saturday). The need to improve crossings was also a common issue raised in the consultation, including by bus passengers. The proposal intends to balance the needs of all by improving the area for pedestrians, whilst recognising its importance as an area for bus interchange. |
|
Request to increase disabled parking |
The scheme focuses on Western Road and no disabled parking is expected to be impacted by the proposals. Additional loading space is proposed which can be used for drop-off / pick-up. However, because of the need to provide loading for businesses, converting loading bays to disabled parking is unfortunately not deemed to be a practical option. |
|
Request for more tree planting |
There is an opportunity to increase the number of trees as part of the design. The exact locations will be subject to detailed site investigations. |
|
Need to address street clutter |
The scheme aims to remove unnecessary street furniture and better organise that which is required, such as cycle parking and benches. |
|
Requests to improve the cleanliness of the area |
The scheme proposals should enhance the public realm by removing or replacing old street furniture. This will be complemented by separate work by CityClean, agreed by ETS on 22 June, to reduce the number of bins, particularly commercial bins which have increased in recent years. |
|
Request for additional side road closures |
This is likely to enhance the Western Road scheme by removing unnecessary through-traffic. However, there is a need to consider essential access and the impacts of diverted traffic. It is recommended this be taken forward as a separate project. |
|
Request to do more to enforce abuse of parking and loading restrictions |
The proposals include a new loading bay near Sillwood Road. There is currently limited loading provision in this area which is where contraventions are greatest. Broader requests have been made for more restrictions west of Montpelier Road. This is beyond the scheme area but can be considered as part of future work. |
|
Concern around disruption during construction |
It is acknowledged the scheme will be disruptive and construction work could take up to two years. However, this would be phased to minimise the impact on businesses at any one time. There is a critical need to resurface the road and pavements on Western Road. A comprehensive scheme, including renewal of street furniture, lighting etc. would be less disruptive than repeated work in future years if resurfacing was carried out now on its own. Officers will be working closely with businesses and bus operators to ensure that disruption can be kept to a minimum, as well as community and disability groups to ensure access throughout works. Priority will be given to ensuring pedestrians can access businesses as they continue to recover from the pandemic and work will be paused where possible during key trading periods. |
5.19 The recommendation in Paragraph 2.1 requests that members approve the preliminary designs. This will allow a contractor to be procured and construction to start on certain elements such as footway resurfacing in Autumn 2021. Other aspects of the design, such as changes to loading and bus lane restrictions will be subject to further public consultation in August/September 2021 through the Traffic Regulation Order process. Officers will present the results of this consultation and the proposed next steps to a future ETS Committee.
6. PRESTON CIRCUS TO PATCHAM ROUNDABOUT (A23)
Scheme proposals – A23
6.1 As part of the Active Travel Fund Tranche 1 work that took place in 2020, a cycle improvement scheme was proposed for Preston Road between Stanford Avenue and Argyle Road, as well as Campbell Road, and Argyle Road itself. The scheme proposals featured a point-closure of Argyle Road at the junction with Preston Road, and a temporary bi-directional cycle lane segregated by temporary barriers between Argyle Road and Stanford Avenue. The scheme was not progressed to implementation due to unresolved impacts on CityClean’s services and limitations on essential access for businesses on Campbell Road via Argyle Road. These design ideas and lessons learned have been considered when developing preliminary designs for the wider Tranche 2 scheme.
6.2 The Active Travel Fund Tranche 2 A23 scheme focuses on the section of the A23 (London Road/Preston Road/Patcham-By-Pass) between the A23/Mill Road roundabout at the north of the City, to the junction with Argyle Road in the south. Within this scope, consideration has also been given to Stanford Avenue between Preston Road and Beaconsfield Villas.
6.3 The A23 forms part of the National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 20 but current cycle infrastructure on the route is inadequate, inconsistent and falls short of the current national design standards for cycling (LTN 1/20). These standards promote high quality cycle facilities, including protecting and separating cyclists from vehicles and pedestrians to ensure safety and promote an increase in cycling.
6.4 In line with the new national design standards, the scheme principles were outlined within the Active Travel Fund consultation and include: reallocation of road space for Active Travel infrastructure improvements along this strategic corridor including permanently widening the existing on-road cycle facility and provision of light segregation; key permanent junction upgrades; improvements to bus lanes; and provision of floating bus stops wherever possible.
Consultation survey results – A23
6.5 1,977 responses to the A23 scheme concept proposals were received, responses are summarised below. Further information can be found in Appendix 1.
6.6 Respondents were first asked about how they currently used the area and specific problems they encounter.
6.7 Driving a car or van was the most common main mode of travel in this area by respondents, followed by walking and cycling (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.2/3). A large number of respondents said that they mostly used this route to get to other destinations, reflecting the fact that the A23 is a main artery into and out of the City. It should also be noted, however, there are popular destinations in the area, in particular the many parks and green spaces along this route. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.4)
6.8 Problems and/or issues along the corridor were raised about cycling infrastructure, walking conditions, and road conditions. The top problems and/or issues by number of comments regarding ‘getting around the area’ included: a lack of safe cycle infrastructure (cycle lanes/routes), too much traffic congestion, and the condition of the road and pavement. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.5)
6.9 The problems users face in this area vary depending on the main travel mode used. Cyclists are mostly concerned with lack of routes; pedestrians with various elements of the pavement quality; and car drivers are concerned with various elements including road condition and congestion. Respondents travelling by bus also made several comments about the difficulties they face moving around the area as a pedestrian. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.6)
6.10 Respondents were asked to highlight any issues with three key junctions in the area, namely Preston Drove, Tongdean Lane, and Carden Avenue. Of these, the Preston Drove junction was mentioned the most. There were slight differences in which junctions people commented on depending on whether they identified as having a disability or not, and the severity of their disability. (Appendix 1, Table 6.2.10)
6.11 The most common suggested improvements were around improving safety conditions and infrastructure for cyclists, followed by the addition of more trees and vegetation, improving air quality/reducing pollution, and improving the condition of the road. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.8)
6.12 When looking at the top five improvements by each main mode used to travel in the area, the introduction of more trees and vegetation is common across all main modes cited by respondents, despite much of this route running alongside parkland and wide grass verges. Other top improvement suggestions by mode include widening pavements and improving pedestrian crossing points, improving cycle safety and the existing infrastructure on the route, reducing traffic and congestion, and improving the condition of the road. Bus users’ suggestions mostly mirrored those of pedestrians with the addition of improving pavement conditions and reducing bus fares. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.9)
6.13 Respondents were asked to score walking conditions from 1 to 10 (where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent). The average satisfaction score across all respondents for walking conditions in the area is 5.8. Car drivers and bus users gave walking and cycling conditions higher scores than those who walk and cycle in the area: 6.4 and 5.8 respectively compared to only 5.2 for pedestrians and cyclists. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.11/12/13)
6.14 70.5% of respondents felt safe or very safe walking in this area during the day, falling to just 39% after dark. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.14). However, from the additional comments provided it is clear that respondents feel less safe walking after dark due to the environment in this area, rather than specific travel related issues. Only 3.9% of female respondents felt safe walking in the area after dark compared to 10.7% of male respondents. Levels of safety were much more similar between the two genders during the day. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.16) Results also showed that respondents who identified as having a disability where slightly less likely to feel safe or very safe at all times of the day.
6.15 Respondents were asked to score cycling conditions from 1 to 10 (where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent). The average score of cycling conditions in the area is 5.0. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.20/21)
6.16 In a similar pattern to the scores for walking conditions in this area, car drivers rated cycling conditions as 5.9, above the overall average score. Cyclists had much lower average score of 4.3 for conditions in the area, with walkers and bus users scoring in between the two extremes (5.1 and 4.9 respectively). This suggests car drivers perceive cyclists to have better conditions and facilities in this area than cyclists state they experience. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.22)
6.17 Respondents deemed cycling less safe than walking with only 32.6% indicating they felt safe or very safe cycling here during the day, falling to 22.8% after dark. In total 429 respondents said they felt unsafe or very unsafe cycling in the area during the day, and 491 said they felt this way after dark. Comments relating to heavy traffic, inconsistent lanes and traffic speed were mentioned by those feeling unsafe. (Appendix 1, Table 6.1.24)
6.18 The route from Preston Circus to Patcham Roundabout is long and varied and therefore when asking specific questions about usage, the questions split the route into three distinct sections. These sections included Preston Road and Stanford Avenue (south of Preston Park), Stanford Avenue to Preston Drove (running alongside Preston Park), and Preston Drove to Patcham Roundabout. (Appendix 1, Table 6.2.1) The southerly end of the route was more likely to be used by pedestrians, but further north on the section furthest away from the City centre cycling is more common than walking. (Appendix 1, Figure 6.2.2)
6.19 Early proposals for this area included new and updated cycle lanes and improved junctions at several points along the route, respondents were asked to give their views on the plans.
6.20 Over 50% of respondents said they were either likely or highly likely to use the new cycle lanes on the two most southernly sections (Preston Road and Stanford Avenue; Stanford Avenue to Preston Drove), and this fell to just under 50% for the most northernly section (Preston Drove to Patcham Roundabout). (Appendix 1, Table 6.2.3)
6.21 Around 35% of respondents said they were very unlikely to cycle on these new and improved lanes, this reflects the finding from the public opinion section of the consultation that 30% of respondents do not cycle.
6.22 In addition to this around 35% of respondents who said they didn’t currently travel in this area, and around 6% of respondents who currently do not cycle said they would be likely or highly likely to use the new cycle lanes along these three sections.
Stakeholder workshop / focus group feedback – A23
6.23 As part of the consultation, officers organised stakeholder workshops which local groups and organisations were invited to. A summary of feedback provided is included in Appendix 2 with design responses provided in Table 2. Initial thoughts on the proposal were largely positive.
6.24 During stakeholder workshops, some concerns were raised by stakeholders around the potential of shortening the length of bus priority lanes and the perceived reduction of space on roads for buses to safely navigate.
6.25 The most commonly suggested solutions to the problems raised were reducing speed, separating the shared pedestrian and cyclist routes, reducing width of side road entry points, and improving pedestrian crossing points.
6.26 Across all workshops, numerous junctions along the route were identified as needing improvement. The top three junctions perceived as requiring the most attention were The Deneway, Carden Avenue and Tongdean Lane.
6.27 Focus groups were also held in order to gather feedback, these were held with younger people, older people and disabled people. Items raised included concern around bus boarders / floating bus stops[3] and ensuring there is enough space for pedestrians, concerns around pedestrian / cycle conflict, wider connectivity of the route needed (e.g. further south via Preston Circus)
Monitoring – A23
6.28 Pre-scheme monitoring along the corridor has been undertaken, data gathered includes pedestrian and cycle counts, journey time surveys, speed data, and turning counts. Data was gathered on three neutral days, including one Saturday giving an indication of general usage.
6.29 Much of the data gathered during this monitoring phase will be used to inform junction design and modelling, to compare data at various stages of the scheme, and to provide insight into existing highway usage.
6.30 Air Quality data is also gathered annually from sensors stationed in Preston Park and near the junction of South Road and Preston Road. The data from these sensors will be compared in the future once the scheme has been implemented to assess the impact on local air quality.
6.31 It should be noted at this point that the pre-scheme monitoring period was undertaken in May and June 2021 and the data will reflect the fact that there were still Covid-19 restrictions in place at this time.
6.32 Themes emerging from the first monitoring phase indicate that, as reflected in responses from the public consultation survey, numbers of cycle users are higher in the southern sections of the scheme than the north. Pedestrian numbers follow the same trends with higher counts of north/south corridor journeys being recorded in the southern sections.
Conclusion – A23
6.33 The preliminary design proposals as shown in Appendix 7 have been developed to meet the scheme principles, follow on from the initial designs, and have been informed by the results of the initial consultation. They also take into account design principles set out in Local Transport Note 1/20. These proposals have considered initial public consultation and stakeholder feedback, pre-scheme highway monitoring information, as well as officer knowledge of the route.
6.34 Key improvement proposed within the preliminary designs include the widening of existing cycle lanes through the reallocation of road space; provision of wider footways through relocation of existing cycle lanes; separation of cycle lanes from footway and traffic lanes; improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities; bus stop upgrades to floating bus stop and bus boarder arrangements; improvements to existing bus lanes; cycle and pedestrian improvements at Preston Drove, South Road, and Stanford Avenue junction and the signalisation of Tongdean Lane, The Deneway, and Carden Avenue junctions; side-road entry treatments throughout the corridor; and improvements to the general road layout throughout the corridor, including decluttering.
6.35 The preliminary design proposals include some areas of parking rationalisation, notably the northern end of the scheme near Patcham Place Recreation Ground. Reallocation of these areas of carriageway allows for the inclusion of LTN 1/20 compliant cycle infrastructure whilst improving the pedestrian experience in this area.
6.36 Pedestrian facilities and corridor walkability have been considered throughout the scheme and improvements including side-road entry treatments, new and upgraded standalone pedestrian crossings, and new signalised junctions with pedestrian facilities have been included. Footways have also been widened at various areas throughout the scheme by removing the existing cycle infrastructure from the footway and reassigning shared spaces to pedestrians where possible.
6.37 Improvements to bus infrastructure are present throughout the proposals, including new floating bus stops where space allows, bus boarder arrangements and improvements to existing bus priority lanes. These improvements will not only improve safety for pedestrian and cyclists, they also aim to benefit bus passengers.
6.38 Members are also asked to approve proposals to progress a trial Park & Ride scheme at Mill Road from Summer 2022, working with Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company. This would use Mill Road in a similar way as it is on match days at the AMEX Community Stadium. The proposed route would be for buses to run non-stop to the City centre with stops at St Peter’s Church, North Road and the Old Steine before returning. The trial would involve minor works to Mill Road to provide bus stops and parking bays. Access would be maintained to properties and Waterhall.
6.39 The Park & Ride scheme is intended to complement the wider proposals for the A23 as it is expected that it would reduce traffic using it. The scheme may also provide benefits to wider routes in the City as those who need to travel by car into the City will have an alternative sustainable option via the Park & Ride trial. The trial would be fully evaluated to gain feedback and understand how people are using it. The trial will also consider the associated carbon impact of initiating a larger scale park and ride, including on emissions and any induced demand around car use as a mode of transport to arrive in the city.
6.40 New signalised junction upgrades have been designed to improve the experience and safety of vulnerable road users. These junction designs will continue to be developed during the next design stage; this will be achieved via junction modelling and an assessment of impacts on the local bus network and wider traffic networks.
6.41 While consultation feedback identifies the importance of both the Stanford Avenue and Argyle Road links as key parts of the cycle network, these are currently not within the scope of this scheme. This is because there is limited funding and these links would require significant work to integrate into the wider network, particularly at the junction of Stanford Avenue and Beaconsfield Road. However, it is recommended that this be developed as part of the wider cycle network though the implementation of the emerging LCWIP.
6.42 It should also be noted that current proposals are subject to ongoing junction modelling, funding availability, future public consultation results, Traffic Regulation Order consultations, and changes to government guidance.
6.43 Table 2 summarises how these proposals respond to the main comments received in the consultation
Table 2: Design response to feedback – A23
|
Consultation feedback |
Design response |
|
Concerns regarding a lack of safe cycle infrastructure |
Proposed cycle infrastructure improvements bring the cycle provisions in line with government guidance as laid out in LTN 1/20, improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians. These include ‘grade-separated’ cycle lanes throughout the scheme, full segregation where possible and protection from traffic at major junctions. Other improvements also include cycle phases at junctions and the use of low-level cycle lanterns. |
|
Difficulties moving around the area as a pedestrian |
Improvements to existing pedestrian crossing facilities across the A23, and at sideroads and junction have been included in the design proposals. Areas of wider footway and new signalised pedestrian crossings have also been included throughout the scheme. Improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities ensure that movement around the area is not impeded for pedestrians and bus users, and junction upgrades ensure a safer corridor for all modes. |
|
Improvements to junctions required throughout the route. |
The design proposals include new signalised junctions at Carden Avenue and Tongdean Lane, and upgrades including layout improvements to major junctions (Preston Drove and South Road). |
|
Concern around bus boarders / floating bus stops and ensuring there is enough space for pedestrians |
Where possible, floating bus stops have been proposed ensuring that pedestrian ‘waiting’ space is adequate. Where floating bus stops are not possible to implement due to space restrictions or are uneconomical, bus boarder arrangements have been proposed. This is in-line with the guidance for implementing LTN 1/20 compliant schemes Bus Boarder arrangements assist in reducing bus journey times by removing the need to merge with traffic when moving away from a bus stop. They also improve safety for cyclists as they reduce the need for buses to change lanes when stopping, reducing the likelihood of collision. |
|
Concerns around potential reduction in bus priority lanes. |
The bus priority lanes throughout the scheme have been retained, the section south of Carden Avenue has been extended northwards to encompass the new floating bus stop adjacent to Withdean Park. |
6.44 The recommendation in Paragraph 2.2 requests that members approve the preliminary designs, these are still subject to further discussions with key stakeholders. Next steps include further design, modelling and feasibility of junction designs. The recommendations also ask the Committee to agree to continued development of the designs subject to further consultation. Officers will then return to a future ETS Committee with detailed design and construction recommendations based on the detailed consultation. This report will also include a construction and implementation breakdown plan identifying proposals for implementing in a phase by phase approach taking into account financial implications, the production of a detailed Equalities Impact Assessment and the results of associated Traffic Regulation Order Consultations.
7. OLD SHOREHAM ROAD (A270)
Scheme proposals – Old Shoreham Road
7.1 Temporary protected cycle lanes have been in place on Old Shoreham Road since May 2020 to provide additional space for safe cycling on this route. The proposals for the Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lane scheme outlined a number of walking and cycling improvements and alterations along Old Shoreham Road from The Drive to Hangleton Road. These included collecting feedback on the current temporary cycle lane. The scheme proposals for consultation were:
· Review of and improvements to signage and road markings across the existing temporary scheme.
· Alterations and revised layout to improve the existing pedestrian crossing near the southern access to Hove Park.
· Pedestrian crossing improvements to the junction of Newtown Road and Old Shoreham Road.
· Cycle priority signals at traffic signals along Old Shoreham Road.
· Permanent cycle lanes on Nevill Road (between Old Shoreham Road and Nevill Avenue).
· Pedestrian and cycle access only at Weald Avenue / Old Shoreham Road junction.
· Changes to the Olive Road/Stapley Road junction:
o Increase space for vehicles turning right into Olive Road or Stapley Road.
o No right turn (except cycles and buses) from Stapley Road to Old Shoreham Road, and no right turn (except buses and cycles) from Old Shoreham Road to Stapley Road.
7.2 These proposals also outlined an extension to the existing temporary cycle lane from Hangleton Road to Applesham Way with the addition of:
· Improved cycle access to Benfield Valley.
· Cycle priority at cycle lane traffic signals.
· Additional cycle access created at Windlesham Close.
Consultation survey results – Old Shoreham Road
7.3 3,168 responses were received to the Old Shoreham Road questions. Responses came from all postcode areas of the City and are summarised below. Further information can be found in Appendix 1.
7.4 Responses on the existing temporary cycle lane included:
· Driving (64%) was the main mode of travel used in the area across all respondents, followed by cycling (21.4%). 37.8% of respondents have used the temporary cycle lane since it was installed. (Appendix 1, Table 7.2.1)
· Over 75% of respondents who have used the temporary cycle lane since its installation said they felt safe or very safe while using it during the day.
· Respondents who had used the cycle lane were asked to consider the last journey they made in the cycle lane, and which mode they would have previously used for that journey. 35.9% said that their previous mode used was car. This shows a large potential for modal shift towards sustainable travel not only for those currently using the lanes but for future users. (Appendix 1, Table 7.2.2)
· 197 respondents gave further comments as to why they felt unsafe or very unsafe using the temporary cycle lane. The top two reasons were to do with dangerous junctions, vehicles parking in the lanes and need for additional separation from vehicles. (Appendix 1, Table 7.2.7)
· 431 respondents who used to cycle along this route prior to the installation of the temporary cycle lane are now using the lane rather than the pavement or road (previously unprotected for cyclists). A further 14.1% of respondents who had used the cycle lanes said that, whilst they would have cycled an east to west journey in this area, they would not have chosen Old Shoreham Road as their cycling route without the new cycle lane. (Appendix 1, Figure 7.2.3) This figure is important as it shows the latent demand for cycling on the Old Shoreham Road route, which has been realised with the introduction of the lane, and can be realised further by building on the initial work undertaken, in the context of the LCWIP and the strategic network.
· Appendix 1, Table 7.2.5 shows that 75.7% of users of the temporary cycle lane felt safe or very safe cycling in the lanes during the day, this fell to 54% after dark. Both results are much higher than current safety perceptions of respondents cycling in Western Road and the route of the A23.
· Opinions on the existing temporary cycle lane from The Drive to Hangleton Road varied considerably depending on how people travelled in the area. Cyclists who have used the lane commented positively on it, whereas non-users were more likely to be negative. Cyclists and pedestrians in the area also gave higher levels of positive comments compared to car drivers. (Appendix 1, Table 7.2.10)
· In terms of themed responses to open comments , the most common themed comments included that the cycle lanes are causing congestion / pollution / noise; that it’s dangerous and confusing, and the perception that cyclists are not using it and still using the pavement. Following these top three comments were the themes of general positive and general negative comments respectively. (Appendix 1, Table 7.2.8)
· Respondents were also asked to comment on the proposed improvements to the cycle lane. The most common themed comments in relation to the proposals were general positive comments, negative comments (not needed / waste of money), as well as ‘congestion / pollution / noise’, comments requesting removal of the cycle lane, and comments on cyclists not using the lane. (Appendix 1, Table 7.3.1)
7.5 Responses on the proposed temporary cycle lane extension included:
· 14.1% of respondents who do not currently use this route to cycle would be likely or highly likely to do so if the extension was in place. (Appendix 1, Table 7.4.4)
· Of those asked, 67% of cyclists are likely or very likely to use the proposed extended cycle lane and, of those that drive, 12% are likely or very likely to use the extended cycle lane. (Appendix 1, Table 7.4.6)
· Two local primary schools stated that the existing temporary lanes do not go far enough to benefit them currently, and that the extension proposals would be of wider benefit to their school communities
· General comments about the extension of the temporary cycle lane were also received. 742 were classed as negative, and 426 were classed as positive comments. (Appendix 1, Table 7.4.8)
· 25% of pedestrians, over 10% of car users and over 20% of bus users in the area said they would be likely or highly likely to use the extension to the temporary cycle lane if it were to be introduced. (Appendix 1, Table 7.4.6)
· The most common themed comment responses to the proposed extension were general negative (not needed / waste of money); congestion / pollution / noise; general positive comments; cyclists not using the lanes; and remove the cycle lanes. The top two themes were common across drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. (Appendix 1, Table 7.4.8/11)
7.6 Responses on other proposed changes to the area included:
· 1,058 respondents left comments on the proposed closure to motor vehicles on Weald Avenue. These were closely split, with 264 negative comments and 244 positive. (Appendix 1, Table 7.5.1)
· A further permanent proposal was to introduce a cycle lane on Nevill Road. The residents who responded from Nevill Road mostly left negative comments on the proposed cycle lane on their road. (Appendix 1, Table 7.5.7)
· Olive/Stapley Road proposals – approximately 300 comments stated various issues with the proposed changes to Stapley Rd/Olive Rd approximately 70 were positive. Issues included: traffic displacement, disabled and residents access. (Appendix 1, Table 7.3.1/2)
Stakeholder workshop / focus group feedback – Old Shoreham Road
7.7 As part of the consultation, officers organised stakeholder workshops which local groups and organisations were invited to. A summary of feedback provided in Appendix 2.
7.8 Some of the key feedback raised at these sessions included the following:
· Visibility issues for left turning vehicles across the cycle lane.
· Improvements needed to the existing route for cyclists, including additional wands and safety improvements at junctions.
· Buses are delayed by the cycle lane and the proposed extension would impact on more bus routes.
· Access to the recycling centre is an issue and a conflict point.
· Younger people generally welcomed the improvements particularly on this key route to schools and colleges; however, older people generally felt that the cycle lane was not needed as cyclists could easily take other routes, they also felt it was unfair that so much space was taken just for cyclists on this route.
· There were mixed views on Nevill Road, some welcoming the improvements linking to key schools, others taking the view that the impact on the Sackville Road / Nevill Road junction would be too major.
· At a meeting with Adur & Worthing and West Sussex County Councils it was noted that the Old Shoreham Road / Upper Shoreham Road features in the approved Adur & Worthing LCWIP document.
· There was concern raised regarding the impact the western extension proposals would have on key junctions including the Hangleton Link Road / Southern Cross.
· Pedestrian improvements were generally welcomed and it was felt that more is needed for pedestrians on this scheme.
Monitoring – Old Shoreham Road
7.9 DfT conducted manual surveys in June 2016 and 2020 at Lullington Avenue in Hove, as well as the Council conducting a manual survey in July 2020. The introduction of the cycle lanes has shown increased cycling volumes along this route by up to 61% between 2016 data collected by the DfT and a seven-day count of cycles following the implementation of the lanes in July 2020. The DfT survey conducted in 2020 also recorded a 98.5% increase of cycles from their 2016 figure. The Council also conducted an additional manual survey in June 2021, this showed a 23% decrease in cycling levels compared to the 2016 baseline; however, this survey was affected by very poor weather, as is shown in Appendix 4. It should also be seen in the context of the consultation responses which indicate more people are using the road to cycle who did not previously.
7.10 Seven day traffic surveys were conducted by an independent survey company at Lullington Avenue and Benfield Way to monitor the existing volumes of vehicle traffic, in both 2020 and 2021. These show a 13% reduction and 0.2% increase in traffic respectively, and there is no evidence of a change in average speed along this route since the introduction of the cycle lanes.
7.11 This data will be compared with future surveys including immediately after scheme implementation, 6 months after implementation and 12 months after implementation.
7.13 Air quality monitoring stations have also been set up in strategic locations along the scheme area that will allow an understanding of the levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) produced by motorised vehicles. Air quality monitoring will be collected prior to implementation and no less than 18 months after.
Future vision – Old Shoreham Road
7.14 When the Old Shoreham Road was originally widened in the 1970s, it was the main route along the south coast, coping with large volumes of traffic passing through the City. In the mid 1990s, the A27 bypass was introduced to allow the majority of traffic to avoid this residential area; however, the A270 road layout remains constructed for this large amount of pre-bypass traffic which is unsuited to a residential area and creates a large severance in this area of the City.
7.15 The temporary cycle lane has allowed a trial to consider how this route can be used differently in order to accommodate different types of user rather than the vehicle dominance that the general layout invites.
7.16 The Old Shoreham Road route features as a priority strategic route in the draft LCWIP for the City, which sets out key routes for future improvement – these routes are prioritised based on their ability to increase cycling levels in areas of high potential for cycling.
7.17 A temporary scheme has its limitations in terms of how the physical reallocation of road space can be achieved; however, with suitable funding for a permanent scheme, much more of a balance can be reached with regards to the large amount of available space and reallocation of this more favourably across modes, e.g. additional consideration for buses and pedestrians and for general traffic flow at junctions. The Council is therefore seeking additional funding for more permanent improvements along this route which would be subject to further detailed consultation should the funding be received.
7.18 Appendix 9 shows visualisations of what a future vision for Old Shoreham Road could look like, as an indication of the type of improvements that could be achieved. These show the continuation of the ‘stepped track’ facility which is already in place on Old Shoreham Road (between The Drive and Dyke Road). These are indicative and subject to securing of suitable future funding, for example, through additional Active Travel Fund allocations from DfT.
Conclusion – Old Shoreham Road
7.19 The detailed design proposals, as shown in Appendix 8, have been developed to meet the scheme principles. These follow on from the initial designs and have been informed by the results of the consultation. They also take into account design principles set out in Local Transport Note 1/20. These proposals have considered public consultation and stakeholder feedback and highway monitoring information.
7.20 Key proposals for the designs for improving the existing temporary cycle lane are:
· Improvements to be made along the existing temporary cycle lane route including to lining, signing, wands, and improvements at junctions. Ongoing monitoring to continue along the route, including for air quality.
· Additional cycle parking along the route.
· Improvements for pedestrians at Newtown Road and near Hove Park – the Hove Park improvements will benefit not only pedestrians but also cyclists and drivers.
7.21 While designs for a proposed temporary cycle lane extension were considered, the limitations of a temporary scheme on this additional section, as well as the lack of support at this stage, mean that these proposals are not suggested to be taken forward currently. The route features as a priority route in the draft strategic cycling network in the LCWIP and can be considered in future with appropriate time and resource, including detailed consideration of the key junctions on this section, which are not deemed to be feasible through a temporary scheme, unlike for the existing section to the east.
7.22 Key proposals for the other proposed changes to the area are:
· Stapley Road – a temporary scheme to be put in place to improve vehicle queuing space for turning movements at this junction. A temporary scheme will allow future changes to be made.
· Access restrictions for Stapley Road are not proposed to be taken forward at this stage.
· The proposals for Nevill Road are not recommended to be progressed at this stage.
· Windlesham Close proposed improvements are closely linked to the proposed extension area and therefore are not proposed to go ahead at this stage.
· It is not proposed to take forward Weald Avenue access restrictions at this stage.
7.23 Table 3 summarises how these proposals respond to the main comments received in the consultation.
Table 3: Design response to feedback – Old Shoreham Road
|
Consultation feedback |
Design response |
|
Requests for improvements to the existing route |
The proposed designs include making improvements to the existing route. This includes improving the pedestrian crossing south of Hove Park, increasing queuing space from 6 to 12 vehicles at Olive Road junction, additional ‘wands’, cycle signals at junctions, and improved signage across the length of the cycle lane. |
|
A principal concern was regarding the potential impact of the proposed western extension on buses. This is now recommended not to be taken forward at this stage. Regarding the current temporary cycle lane route, additional bus cages and clear way markings are proposed as part of route improvements in order to improve safety. Additional vehicle queuing space is proposed for the Olive Road / Stapley Road junction which will bring improvements for buses. Should future funding be secured for permanent improvements for this route, further detailed consideration could be given to junction improvements to benefit buses. |
|
|
Requests to address conflict and congestion at Hove recycling centre |
The right turn vehicle movement from Old Shoreham Road (travelling eastbound and turning right into the recycling centre) has been banned temporarily in order to reduce pressure on the access point to the recycling centre. At busy times the centre has placed staff to manage vehicles at the junction with Old Shoreham Road in order to prevent a build-up of traffic accessing the centre. |
|
Concerns of underutilisation of cycle lane |
Surveys have been undertaken to examine the use of the cycle lane and are described in the monitoring note in Appendix 4. As the public opinion survey results show, travel, particularly regular travel e.g. to a workplace, has reduced since the pandemic and is in a state of change. It is therefore recommended that continued monitoring takes place on the cycle lane. |
|
Request for more pedestrian improvements |
Pedestrian improvements are included in the designs. This includes the pedestrian crossing south of Hove Park and Newtown Road, as shown in scheme drawings in Appendix 8. |
|
Concerns over Hangleton Link / Southern Cross junctions and traffic volumes |
These junctions have a high volume of traffic partly due to being one of the main routes to Shoreham Port. While there are ambitions for modal shift to be achieved in the City including on this route, this will take time and therefore the impacts of any scheme on these key junctions needs examination in further detail e.g. modelling and detailed design, which can only be achieved through a future permanent scheme should funding be secured for improvements. It is not recommended to take forward the temporary scheme proposed. |
|
Concerns over large width of cycle lane |
The new national cycling design standards (LTN 1/20) require cycle lanes to be no less than 2 metres wide to allow for specially adapted cycles such as those used by disabled persons. Due to this, designs for the current temporary scheme could not incorporate the retention of both traffic lanes and a cycle lane, therefore, the designs opted for the removal of a traffic lane for the implementation of a 3-metre cycle lane.
Notwithstanding the above, even if a narrower cycle lane were put in place under a temporary scheme, this would not allow further vehicle space due to the layout of the lanes. However, should future funding be secured for permanent improvements, there is a large amount of available space here which could be reallocated more favourably to other modes than has been achieved in this temporary scheme, including general traffic and buses. |
|
Requests for more advanced stop lines (ASLs) and cycle priority signals at traffic lights |
These are being incorporated into the designs at junctions where possible along the route. |
|
Concerns that the cycle lane causes more pollution and congestion |
Pre-scheme monitoring is currently being undertaken along Old Shoreham Road. This includes the collection of vehicle count data which is included in this report. This traffic data shows no evidence of a change in average speed along this route since the introduction of the cycle lanes. Air quality data is now being collected and will be reported at a future ETS Committee. Through the introduction of the scheme, the Council is looking to provide a safe facility for cycling, which will encourage modal shift to cycling for short journeys locally and reduce traffic on key routes in the City. This ensures the Council will meet wider commitments including the City becoming net carbon neutral by 2030. |
|
Requests for alternative routes to be considered |
Old Shoreham Road is a main route into the City that many people use on a variety of modes. There is also latent demand for cycling on this route, as has been shown by the survey data and also other tools such as the national Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT). The previous vehicle-dominated layout is not safe for cycling and improvements have therefore been made through the temporary cycle lane to increase safety for cyclists in line with national cycle design standards. Old Shoreham Road is a key route for students travelling to educational facilities such as BHASVIC. Feedback has been received stating that other east-west cycle routes should be considered instead of the Old Shoreham Road, including the A259 and New Church Road. These routes also feature in the draft LCWIP and all of these routes are important in order to achieve a comprehensive network of safe cycle routes for a range of journeys in the City. This will also be addressed in the LCWIP and was a key recommendation from the citizens’ Climate Assembly. It is not a case of simply focusing on the other routes mentioned instead of Old Shoreham Road, as it is important that a safe cycle network reaches all areas of the City - focusing on a route further south in place of this would neglect areas to the north west / west of the City in terms of safe cycling provision. Safe cycling provision is needed on key routes in the City in line with national cycle design standards. |
|
Concerns of emergency services being delayed due to the cycle lane |
We have liaised with the emergency services in the City and they are aware that the cycle lanes can be used by emergency vehicles if needed. No negative feedback has been received regarding the lanes and delays to response times. |
|
Mixed views regarding Nevill Road |
Designs to implement a cycle lane on Neville Road are not proposed to be taken forward at this stage and can be considered in future when the scheme can be considered on a longer route and where key junctions e.g. Nevill Road / Sackville Road can be considered in detail as part of permanent improvements. |
|
Concerns of proposed no right turn onto Stapley Road |
Designs to implement a no right turn onto Stapley Road are not proposed to be taken forward, due to the feedback received and the potential for impact on other junctions. |
|
Request for additional signage |
Signage audits are currently underway to improve signage for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians. |
|
Concerns over the scheme being a waste of money |
We have a strong instruction, and funding, from central government to make active travel an attractive option for short journeys, or as part of a longer journey. This scheme is funded by DfT, this funding is strictly for active-travel related improvements in the City as described in the funding bid and cannot be used for any other purpose. Should funding not be used for this purpose it will need to be returned. |
|
Request for the cycle lane to be extended |
While proposals had included extending the cycle lane to the City boundary, it is not proposed to take plans forward at this stage as a temporary scheme, however the route features in the draft strategic LCWIP and future consideration to detailed designs and proposals will be given should funding be available to consider this complex scheme in sufficient detail for all modes. |
7.24 The recommendations in Paragraphs 2.4 to 2.7 request members to approve retaining the temporary cycle lane with improvements along the route and continued monitoring (to be brought back to a future Committee).
7.25 It is not proposed to take forward the western extension as a temporary scheme.
7.26 Complementary measures proposed to be taken forward include the improvements to Newtown Road and Hove Park, and improvements to the Stapley Road / Olive Road junction.
7.27 Complementary measures not proposed to be taken forward at present include Windlesham Close, Weald Avenue, Stapley Road access restrictions and Nevill Road. Members are asked to note the future visualisations shown in Appendix 9 for Old Shoreham Road and the proposals to secure funding for permanent improvements, which would be subject to further detailed design and consultation.
8. SEAFRONT (A259)
Scheme proposals – Seafront (A259)
8.1 A temporary westbound cycle lane has been in place on the seafront (between West Street and Fourth Avenue) since August 2020 to provide additional safe space for cycling in this key location. Eastbound cyclists continue to use the existing cycle lane shared with the pavements / promenade and via King’s Esplanade.
8.2 In addition to collecting feedback on the existing westbound cycle lane, this proposal was to extend the on-carriageway cycle lane for westbound cyclists along the A259 and continue to Glendor Road near Hove Lagoon, through the following measures:
· Westbound cyclists will be separated from the traffic via wands in a protected cycle lane.
· One westbound traffic lane would be removed which allows for parking to be provided next to the cycle lane. As much parking as possible will be retained including opportunities to improve disabled parking provision.
· Most bus stops will remain in place, the bus stop at Langdale Gardens westbound will be relocated or suspended. Some bus stops will be installed on a raised section of the cycle lane to enable passengers to board, or alight from buses.
8.3 The existing pavement cycle lane will remain available for eastbound cyclists to use. Opportunities will also be taken to improve disabled parking provision and access to bus stops.
Consultation survey results – Seafront (A259)
8.4 3,332 responses were received to the Seafront (A259) questions. Responses came from all postcode areas of the City and are summarised below. Further information can be found in Appendix 1.
8.5 Cycling (35.3%) was the most common main mode of travel used in the area across all respondents, closely followed by walking (31.3%). The area is a popular destination due to the seafront and is already part of the National Cycle Network (NCN2). The A259 is a main artery linking the east and west of the City and beyond, meaning it already brings in many people to, from and through the City. (Appendix 1, Table 8.1.2)
8.6 73.4% of respondents who have used the temporary cycle lane since its installation in August 2020 say they feel safe or very safe using it during the day and 56.2% stated they feel safe or very safe using it after dark. (Appendix 1, Table 8.2.4)
8.7 Those who had cycled along the new cycle lanes largely gave positive comments (738), 306 of these also stated concern over the signage and road markings. (Appendix 1, Table 8.2.9)
8.8 Along the route of the proposed extension, less than 50% of respondents feel safe or very safe cycling on each of the current sections mentioned; Fourth Avenue to Glendor Road via A259 Kingsway (31.2%), Fourth Avenue to Hove Street via Kings Esplanade and the promenade (47.0%) and Hove Street to Glendor Road via the existing pavement cycle lane (49.2%). (Appendix 1, Table 8.3.2)
8.9 Respondents who have used the existing temporary cycle lane were asked how they would have made the last journey before the lane was in place. 7.1% said that they would have driven. A further 71.5% previously used the promenade cycle lane and 7.7% cycled on the road, equating to 1312 cyclists switching to the new lane. This will have improved congestion and safety for cyclists on the eastbound lane and for those who previously cycled on the road, as well as reducing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the promenade. (Appendix 1, Table 8.2.2)
8.10 Over 45% of respondents said they would use the proposed extension to the existing lane, this included 10% of respondents who primarily drive in the area and almost 40% of respondents who would travel mostly on foot. (Appendix 1, Table 8.3.10/16)
8.11 4.7% of respondents who do not currently cycle at all say they would be likely or highly likely to use the extension to this route.
8.12 43.3% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the general safety of cycling in the area, and 38.3% also felt this way about the facilities for cycling in the area. However only 23.3% of the respondents felt satisfied or very satisfied with cycle parking in the area. (Appendix 1, Table 8.1.5)
8.13 Full data and analysis on themed open response comments can be seen in Appendix 1 but key themes emerging from comments on the existing temporary cycle lane included pedestrian / cyclist conflict issues, and the fact that there is already an existing lane (the top themed comment was ‘Not needed / waste of money / negative / already existing lane’). (Appendix 1, Table 8.2.8)
Stakeholder workshop / focus group feedback – Seafront (A259)
8.14 As part of the consultation, officers organised stakeholder workshops which local groups and organisations were invited to. Focus groups were also held in order to gather feedback, these were held with younger people, older people and disabled people. A summary of feedback provided is included in Appendix 2 with design responses provided in Table 4
8.15 Key themes raised in these sessions included:
· More, and better-quality, disabled parking required; current bays not usable for all users.
· Cycle / pedestrian conflict issues – both on promenade (eastbound) cycle route and King’s Esplanade.
· Some questioned the need for a cycle lane when there is a current route available, others stated they felt safe on the new lanes and preferred the direct route extension proposed.
· More improvements needed for pedestrians.
· Improvements needed at Wharf Road junction.
· Vehicle / cycle conflict issues on King’s Esplanade and adjoining roads.
· Stagecoach – didn’t note any issue with the bus stop removal and expressed an interest in a floating bus stop for any permanent schemes.
· Adur & Worthing and West Sussex County Councils noted that the A259. features in the approved Adur & Worthing LCWIP document and that WSCC have developed feasibility designs for a high quality, bi-directional protected cycle lane on the A259 from Shoreham to the City border.
· In engaging with disabled groups, a number of concerns were raised about pedestrian access issues around Victoria Terrace, such as trip hazards, lack of formal crossings and lack of provision for the blind or partially sighted.
· An Access Report highlighting issues for disabled pedestrians and wheelchair users in the area has been produced. These included the need for additional dropped kerbs and footways.
· Some felt that the scheme does not go far enough and that a protected two-way cycle lane should be provided on the street to prevent conflict with pedestrians and motor vehicles.
· Confusion at junctions for pedestrians, pedestrian / cycle conflict, not everyone can cycle.
· There are mixed views on the proposals amongst the local businesses at Victoria Terrace, with some against the extension of the cycle lane, citing servicing issues and their customers accessing shops. Others expressed support as long as servicing concerns are addressed. Many shop keepers are supportive of the extension of the footway and improvement to pedestrian access.
Monitoring – Seafront (A259)
8.16 The introduction of the cycle lanes has shown an immediate increase in cycling (30%) in September 2020, and this increase has continued into June 2021 (85%); when compared to data from prior to the cycle lane’s introduction, in June 2019.
8.17 Traffic volume surveys have also been conducted, Traffic levels have dropped from pre Covid-19 levels along this stretch of the A259, as shown in Appendix 4. Traffic will continue to be monitored on this route.
8.18 A servicing survey has been carried out on Saturday 22 and Tuesday 25 May 2021 at the shop frontages along Victoria Terrace, this information has been used to assess the loading requirements for both businesses and residents, which has helped shape the design of the scheme as shown in Appendix 11.
8.19 An air quality monitoring station has also been set up in the proposed area that will allow monitoring of any change in Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) which is produced by motorised vehicles. The World Health Organisation (WHO) provides guidance on acceptable level of NOX in the air. We will monitor these levels based on WHO advice. Air quality monitoring will be undertaken prior to implementation and no less than 18 months after. PLEASE NOTE: this is not being conducted as part of the Council’s statutory requirement to monitor air quality nor as part of the Council’s Air Quality strategy and is a separate monitoring strategy for this specific transport scheme proposal.
Future vision – Seafront (A259)
8.20 The long-term ambition for the A259 is to have a two-way protected cycle lane on the south side of the road, providing a cycle route linking Brighton to Shoreham, working with West Sussex County Council. This long-term vision is subject to future funding and feasibility. The design vision was set out in documents approved by the June 2020 ETS Committee for further development work (The specific decision was ‘To continue to develop plans for a permanent high-quality on-carriageway two-way cycle facility along the A259 between the Aquarium Roundabout and the western boundary of the City, linking in with plans from West Sussex County Council.’)
8.21 This vision is supported by the Council’s development of the LCWIP for the City, which will set out the strategic network for cycling and walking improvements – subject to further detailed design and funding. The A259 route features in the draft network and the LCWIP document will undertake public consultation in Autumn 2021.
8.22 The vision is also supported by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and Adur & Worthing Councils – the WSCC element of the Brighton to Shoreham cycle scheme features as a priority cycle route in the approved Adur & Worthing LCWIP, and WSCC have carried out feasibility studies for the permanent high-quality bi-directional cycle lane in their area of the scheme.
Conclusion – Seafront (A259)
8.23 The scheme proposals have been developed further since the consultation, building on feedback raised. The detailed designs are provided in Appendix 10 and Appendix 11. The main features of the design are:
· Continuing the temporary cycle lane along the A259 from Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road.
· Extending the footway along the shop frontages at Victoria Terrace.
· Additional loading bays to assist local business.
· Improving disabled access for pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers.
· Introduction of a Parklet on the King’s Esplanade.
· Increase in cycle parking along the route and proposed route.
· Additional signage to improve the existing route and alteration to the ramp at the southern end of West Street.
Table 4: Design response to feedback – Seafront A259
|
Consultation feedback |
Design response |
|
The proposed new cycle lanes are a waste of Council funds |
We have a strong instruction, and funding, from central government to make active travel an attractive option for short journeys, or as part of a longer journey. Along the route of the proposed extension, less than 50% of respondents to the consultation stated they feel safe or very safe cycling on that section of road currently. This shows that there is demand for improved cycling facilities here. This scheme is funded by DfT, this funding is strictly for active-travel related improvements in the City as described in the funding bid and cannot be used for any other purpose. Should funding not be used for this purpose it will need to be returned. |
|
There is an existing cycle lane on this route on the footway, therefore the proposed on-road cycle lane is not needed |
The existing cycle lanes on the footway do not adhere to new national cycling design standards, which requires cycle lanes to be no less than 2 metres wide to allow for specially adapted cycles such as those used by disabled persons, hence the necessity for the new lanes to provide access for disabled people who cycle as well as those with cargo cycles. The standards also require routes to take the most direct route available, as well as the physical separation of cyclists from both traffic and pedestrians. The new proposals would also provide a direct cycling route along Kingsway, as well as an improved one on Kings Esplanade for more leisure-based cycling journeys, and would separate cyclists from pedestrians. Keeping the existing shared pedestrian / cycle lane is not an option as government funding necessitates the Council to improve facilities in line with cycle design standards i.e. separating cyclists from pedestrians. |
|
The existing cycle lanes aren’t used; therefore, these proposed ones won’t be either |
The data shows that the existing cycle lanes are being used, with large increases in cycling levels seen compared to baseline figures. See Appendix 4 for further information. |
|
Traffic congestion/pollution could be made worse due to a lane on the carriageway being used as a cycle lane |
Traffic monitoring has been undertaken on this route and shows a reduction in traffic volumes. It is proposed that continual future monitoring is undertaken in order to understand this data further, as travel is still in a state of change since the pandemic. |
|
Road markings/layout of current scheme is confusing, will this be the same for these proposals? |
Improvements to signage and road markings are proposed as well as making the ‘wands’ more robust on the current scheme, in order to make it safer/clearer to all road users. This would be the same on the proposed section of cycle lanes. Improvements are also proposed near West Street at the beginning of the scheme, to make it clear to cyclists that the new carriageway lane should be used in a westbound direction. |
|
The cycle lanes could be extended further |
We are liaising strategically with West Sussex County Council about extending further west, in line with feasibility designs for the WSCC side, and have committed to this broadly as part of the Shoreham Harbour Transport Strategy. In June 2020 a document was presented to and agreed by the ETS Committee which set out a future vision for this route for a high quality bi-directional cycle lane. The route features as a priority route in the draft strategic LCWIP. |
|
Concerns around loss of parking |
Parking loss will be minimised and improvements will be made to disabled parking and loading arrangements. These proposals would require the loss of 10 residents’ bays, 7 shared residents’ and Pay & Display bays, and 18 Pay & Display bays. This loss in parking is required in order to provide a safely designed scheme. As part of the scheme proposals, 15 disabled parking bays and 2 additional loading bays are proposed, as shown in Appendix 10 and Appendix 11. |
|
The lanes should be segregated using a kerb (‘stepped track’) rather than the ‘wands’ |
This would be a more permanent measure. If the schemes are made permanent after the trial period, this could be considered. |
|
More, and better quality, disabled parking required, current bays not usable for all users |
This has been considered further and improvements to disabled parking provision (quantity and quality) are shown in the detailed designs in Appendix 10 and 11 and result in the addition of 15 bays in total – 5 for the Phase 1 section (West Street to Fourth Avenue) and 10 for the Phase 2 section (Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road). Officers also to explore further provision at King Alfred - Kings Esplanade section to provide close access to the sea. |
|
Cycle/pedestrian conflict issues both on promenade (eastbound) cycle route and King’s Esplanade |
The proposed designs aim to address this by taking westbound cyclists off the promenade and onto the carriageway, reducing pressure (and potential for conflict) on the shared pedestrian / cycle route. This is in line with national cycling design standards where cyclists must be physically separated from both traffic and pedestrians. Improved facilities are proposed for King’s Esplanade which will reduce issues. Provision of the direct cycle route along the A259 will also reduce pressure on the King’s Esplanade route. |
|
More improvements for pedestrians are required |
These are being incorporated into the scheme, please see the design drawings for details. |
|
Improvements needed at Wharf Road junction |
These are being incorporated into the scheme, please see the design drawings for details. |
|
Vehicle / cycle conflict issues on King’s Esplanade and adjoining roads |
Improvements to the designs are being incorporated to address these issues, including reversal of traffic directions on King’s Esplanade and adjoining streets. |
8.24 The recommendations in Paragraphs 2.8 to 2.9 request members to approve retaining the temporary cycle lane with improvements along the route and continued monitoring (to be brought back to a future ETS Committee). It is also recommended to proceed with the western extension of the cycle lane as proposed (as a temporary scheme), as well as implement changes to King’s Esplanade and adjoining roads as a temporary scheme.
9. ANALYSIS & CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
9.1 The recommendations have been set out to support the Council’s commitment to being net Carbon Neutral by 2030. They align with the emerging Local Transport Plan and visions for sustainable transport at a local level.
9.2 Recommendations have been developed following the analysis of public consultation responses and satisfy the requirements of DfT’s Active Travel Funding allocation.
9.3 The option of ceasing all progress on new active travel infrastructure or a ‘do nothing’ approach would affect the Council’s ability to reach its commitments on becoming a Carbon Neutral City. It would also be contradictory to its future vision on transport and affect the Council’s ability to secure funding for future transport improvements and may require the Council to return the secured £2.37M grant funding already received for these transport improvements.
9.4 There is also an option to remove existing cycle facilities. This would again be contradictory to the Council’s commitments, DfT guidance and funding requirements as set out in Paragraph 9.3.
9.5 A further option would be to leave the existing cycle lanes on Old Shoreham Road without the improvements which have been recommended in this report. Doing so would mean the opportunity would be missed to implement enhancements which help to respond to feedback on the scheme.
10. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & CONSULTATION
10.1 Community engagement & consultation activities, and feedback from these, have been set out in Sections 4 (overview), 5 (Western Road), 6 (A23), 7 (Old Shoreham Road) and 8 (A259) of the main report as this forms the basis of the report.
11. CONCLUSION
11.1 Community engagement & consultation activities, and feedback from these, have been set out in Sections 4 (overview), 5 (Western Road), 6 (A23), 7 (Old Shoreham Road) and 8 (A259) of the main report as this forms the basis of the report.
12. FINANCIAL & OTHER IMPLICATIONS:
Financial Implications:
12.1 The majority of available funding for the schemes set out in this report is from the Active Travel Fund grant of £2.376m from DfT. This can be spent on active travel schemes compliant with LTN 1/20 Cycling Design Guidance only. Reallocation to active travel schemes elsewhere in the City is not considered feasible. This is because of the timescales, to design, consult and implement schemes, mean they could not be delivered by the March 2022 funding deadline, even if DfT were to agree to this in principle, which is not certain. It will also not be possible to undertake a comprehensive public consultation on alternative schemes within these timescales.
12.2 Some projects are supplemented by additional funding such as developer contributions and for Western Road, this includes £1.5m from the Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund (also from DfT) which is specifically for the resurfacing of Western Road.
12.3 The Western Road and A23 projects are subject to further design development, at which time scheme costs will be confirmed. For these schemes, value engineering exercises will be undertaken to consider different options for materials. Additional funding then required would be identified from future Local Transport Plan funding. For the A23, it is proposed to deliver the scheme in phases as funding becomes available.
12.4 Works on the Seafront (A259) will require the loss of 10 residents’ bays, 7 residents’ and Pay & Display bays and 18 Pay & Display bays. This is required in order to provide a safely designed scheme. This would be estimated to result in an annual loss of £56,500 to the Council’s revenue. An additional 15 disabled parking bays and 2 additional loading bays are being proposed. This loss of income will then form part of the overall parking position reported through the monthly budget monitoring process.
Finance Officer Consulted: Jeff Coates Date: 09/07/21
Legal Implications:
12.5 The schemes presented in this report can be implemented by means of Traffic Regulation Orders using the Council’s powers as highway authority under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.
12.6 The letter of 16 October 2020 from the Secretary of State for Transport and the statutory guidance entitled ‘Traffic Management Act 2004:network guidance in response to Covid-19’ requires local authorities to carry out consultations with all groups in the local community over proposed changes to the road network. The Council has carried out the consultation in line with this advice.
Lawyer Consulted: Hilary Woodward Date: 07/07/21
Equalities Implications:
12.7 Statutory guidance from DfT updated in February 2021 reiterates that the public sector equality duty continues to apply as Local Authorities make changes to their road networks in response to Covid-19. The Council must ensure that elements of a scheme do not discriminate, directly or indirectly, and must consider their duty to make reasonable adjustments anticipating the needs of those with protected characteristics. The guidance emphasises that groups representing disabled people and others with protected characteristics should be consulted at an early stage of scheme development and accessibility requirements apply to both temporary and permanent measures.
12.8 Before a number of temporary transport changes were made in 2020 in response to Covid-19, an overarching Equality Impact Assessment (EIA EEC19) was undertaken and updated in September 2020 following implementation and further engagement with disability and other representative/ community groups. EIA EEC19 has formed the basis of an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) (Appendix 13) on the further permanent and temporary active travel changes proposed in this report as part of a second tranche of DfT funding awarded in November 2020. It has also been informed by recent public consultation, engagement activities, contact from customers, and national and local data/intelligence.
12.9 The overarching EIA considers any broad, disproportionate impacts of the proposed changes. Individual EIAs for each of the proposed schemes have also been undertaken to highlight any unique factors that might have disproportionate effects on people with protected characteristics.
12.10 The proposals have recently been subject to public consultation and, if implemented, the groups identified as most at risk of being disproportionately affected are disabled people, those from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and women. However, it is important to note that the EIA is identifying the risks of impacts and actions which may be necessary to avoid this. It does not mean there will be a negative impact. Recommendations are summarised below to eliminate or reduce this risk.
12.11 In particular, the public consultation highlighted that access for disabled people in their local area is generally considered poor, and both the amount of street clutter and the need for more disabled parking were common barriers to disabled people travelling more actively for all or part of their journey.
12.12 The consultation also highlighted people’s perception of personal safety whilst walking was similar during the day, but worse for women after dark. National and local data and intelligence supports this and shows that whilst a large percentage of women have experienced harassment in the street and public spaces, these incidents are also under-reported.
12.13 Women and people from BAME communities are also more likely to be key workers and family carers, meaning that they may be travelling on the transport network more regularly during periods of lockdown or with family members.
12.14 It is therefore important that the proposed changes:
· Meet physical accessibility standards, so as not to negatively impact disabled people.
· As a priority, retain disabled parking and maintain disabled access.
· Minimise obstructions on the highway, particularly where a road layout has been altered.
· Are communicated in clear, accessible and multiple formats.
· Consider pedestrian and cyclist safety and ways to ‘design out crime’.
· Take into account the journeys made by key workers and family carers, who are more likely to be female and from BAME groups.
· Encourage people to travel more actively to reduce levels of congestion on the roads, supporting those who do need to drive.
· Facilitate the safe reopening of the City by supporting people to access employment, education, retail and leisure.
Sustainability Implications:
12.15 The measures will improve the transport network for sustainable modes of transport by reallocating road space. This will give opportunities for more people to switch to low carbon modes of transport from single occupancy car use.
Brexit Implications:
12.16 No direct implications.
Any Other Significant Implications:
12.17 None identified.
Crime & Disorder Implications:
12.18 No direct implications.
Risk and Opportunity Management Implications:
12.19 Each component project will maintain a risk register. Significant risks or those where the risk has increased will be reported to the Active Travel Fund Project Board. This meets monthly and will agree actions to manage and mitigate these risks where required.
Public Health Implications:
12.20 Enabling greater uptake of active travel across the City will provide both short and long term benefits to the mental and physical health of our residents. This approach supports the implementation of the Brighton & Hove Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
Corporate / Citywide Implications:
12.21 The measures will support the vision, key outcomes and principle of the new Local Transport Plan 5, as agreed by the ETS Committee on 22 June 2021.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices:
1. Active Travel Fund – Consultation survey report
2. Active Travel Fund – Stakeholder workshop and focus group summary
3. Active Travel Fund – Monitoring overview
4. Old Shoreham Road (A270) and Seafront (A259) monitoring report
5. Western Road – Preliminary designs
6. Western Road – Visualisations
7. A23 – Feasibility designs
8. Old Shoreham Road (A270) – Detailed designs
9. Old Shoreham Road - Visualisations
10. Seafront (A259) – Detailed designs (Phase 1)
11. Seafront (A259) – Detailed designs (Phase 2)
12. Active Travel Fund – Communications plan
13. Active Travel Fund – Equalities Impact Assessment
14. Emergency Active Travel Fund – Tranche 1 public feedback survey data
15. Letter from DfT – Active Travel Fund 2021/22
16. Summary - Active & Inclusive Travel Forum
Background Documents
1. Consultation Plan – Active Travel Fund (agreed at December Special ETS Committee)
2. Emergency Active Travel Funding update – Letter from the Secretary of State, October 2020
3. Active Travel Funding Tranche 2 Allocations – Letter from Secretary of State, November 2020
4. Active Travel Fund Tranche 2 Grant Award – Letter and guidance from DfT, November 2020
5. Park & Ride Overview (Brighton & Hove Buses)
[1] Mini-Hollands were the name given by Transport for London to schemes in three areas of London. These received greater levels of funding to transform streets to provide Dutch-standards of infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists and have seen significant increases in levels of walking and cycling (see DfT letter in Appendix 15). This approach has now been adopted by DfT who are inviting areas to bid for funding.
[2] 2-5 days a week or more
[3] A floating bus stop is where cyclists are diverted behind the bus stop, as on Lewes Road. A bus boarder is where the bus stop is built out into the road. In this case, the bus boarders would be shared between pedestrians (bus passengers) and cyclists. Examples in the City, include Old Shoreham Road between the Drive and Dyke Road.