Environment, Transport
& Sustainability Committee
Subject: Safer, Better Streets –
Highway Improvement Prioritisation Framework
Date of
meeting: 17 January 2023
Report
of:
Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture
Contact
Officer: Name: Tracy Beverley
Tel: 01273 293813
Email: Tracy Beverley@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Ward(s)
affected: All
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
1.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND POLICY CONTEXT
1.1
This report introduces the Safer, Better Streets – Highway
Improvement Prioritisation Framework which provides a process to
assess concerns creating a barriers for safe movement of
pedestrians and cyclists. This process enables officers to consider
and prioritise improvements such as pedestrian crossings, traffic
calming, speed reduction measures, modal filters and Low Traffic
Neighbourhood (LTN) infrastructure.
1.2
Measures introduced as a result of this framework will directly
assist in delivering key priority areas for the Local Cycling and
Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) & emerging fifth Local
Transport Plan (LTP5), and create an integrated transport system,
develop streets and places that encourage and enable safe active
travel and support access to public transport.
1.3
Furthermore, the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly (2020)
recommended the ‘creation of healthier low
traffic/pedestrianised communities’, as a key aim in
supporting a transition to achieving carbon reductions across the
city that can be achieved in combination with other key transport
and planning policy, and programmes of work.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2
2.1
That the Environment Transport & Sustainability Committee
approves the Safer, Better Streets – Highway Improvement
Prioritisation Framework and grants permission to commence the
assessment of outstanding concerns, listed in Appendix 1.
2.2
That the Environment Transport & Sustainability Committee notes
that future concerns will be assessed under this framework and
priority locations will be reported annually at Committee. Priority
improvement measures will be recommended at Committee and
implemented, subject to available funding, through the LTP’s
capital programme or external funding streams.
3.
CONTEXT/ BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3
3.1
The council receives many requests from residents and councillors
to tackle the impact that cars have on the city, these concerns
relate to the number of vehicles using a route (rat running), speed
of vehicles and safety for pedestrians using a road or
area.
3.2
Local surveys have shown that residents are concerned about road
danger, cycle safety, and local highway conditions. By improving
the highway and active travel facilities we can create healthier
neighbourhoods where people want to walk and cycle, which helps to
improve physical and mental wellbeing as well as create safer
communities. There is also a clear demand for transport measures
that will create more liveable neighbourhoods for residents and
communities by reducing the volume and impacts of traffic.
3.3
City Transport regularly receives requests for street improvements
such as traffic calming and speeding traffic reduction measures
from members of the public and local Ward Members. The current
approach to these requests is to focus limited road safety funding
on those locations where collisions occur and to try and reduce the
casualty rate. This allows finite funding to be directly allocated
to high risk sites.
3.4
This collision-based focus does not resolve the perceived risk to
people walking and cycling in the city, for example when vehicles
are avoiding congested strategic roads and using often unsuitable
residential streets. In tackling residents’ concerns around
speeding, traffic volume and improving the pedestrian environment,
we can improve air pollution, encourage more walking, cycling and
improve the street scene.
3.5
In response to these concerns officers have developed and reviewed
the Pedestrian Crossing Priority Assessment and widened its
criteria and remit to assess and prioritise a wider range of
residents’ concerns. This is the Safer, Better Streets
– Highway Improvement Framework.
3.6
This framework introduces a new methodology which considers a range
of important social factors, local walking and cycling priorities
and issues which affect pedestrian movement such as public
perception of danger, the impact of crossings on community
cohesion, access to key services and green space, and improvements
for mobility impaired people.
In publishing the results of
the assessments on an annual basis the new methodology provides a
more coherent, transparent, and proactive approach to responding to
requests from our Members and our community. It will also
provide documented evidence of how concerns will be dealt with in a
consistent manner.
4.
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
4
4.1
The full methodology is set out in Appendix 2 for assessing
concerns related to road safety, speeding, high volumes of traffic
or pedestrian crossings. The methodology contains 16 different
categories including collisions, access to services, pedestrian
movements and vehicle counts at each location. The methodology also
considers LCWIP priorities.
4.2
Each location is triaged, checked for viability, and subject to a
pre-qualification assessment see figure 1 below. Those locations
with a recorded pedestrian casualty in the last 3 years within 50
metres of the request location, and / or where a sample one-hour
vehicle and pedestrian count at peak time exceeded the threshold,
or where recorded speeds are 20 per cent higher than the speed
limit are then subject to a full assessment.
4.3
Where locations are close to schools, officers will consider other
council-led programmes such as the School Crossing Patrol
Assessment Criteria shown in Appendix 3 and the School Streets
prioritisation criteria, provided in Appendix 4. If there are
relatively higher number of collisions these locations may be
prioritised through the council’s ‘High Risk’
programme. Where solutions require an area-based approach these
will be considered through the LTN assessment included in Appendix
5.
4.4
Where concerns relate to traffic offences and the enforcement of
traffic offences, this will need to be reported to Sussex Police.
Officers will direct concerns of this nature to the Police. In some
cases, a mix of enforcement and physical measures may be
appropriate.
4.5
In order to help manage the numbers of requests received officers
will initially only assess those requests or concerns received via
Council Members. This can be reviewed annually at Committee.
Figure 1, Safer, Better Streets Framework Process Flowchart
(also contained in Appendix 2)
5.
ANALYSIS & CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS
5
5.1
Those areas with the highest ranking using the proposed framework
will be prioritised for funding but will not automatically qualify
a particular location for implementation. For example, the cost of
an improvement at a particular location may be prohibitive or upon
closer investigation as it may become apparent there is no
cost-effective engineering solution available.
5.2
In areas where actions are proposed this will be subject to further
design work, associated Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), localised
consultation and Road Safety Audits (RSAs).
5.3
The ‘type’ of improvement proposed is considered on a
case-by-case basis in accordance with Department for Transport such
as LTN1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design and the emerging Manual for
Streets. Measures will also be determined by the existing road
network, pedestrian and vehicle volumes and funding
availability.
5.4
Improvements introduced could range from smaller scale measures,
such as new signs and lines, pedestrian crossings, junction
treatments, reconfigured road layout, modal filters, to larger
scale measures such as LTNs.
5.5
The assessment of new requests will be carried out annually, and a
new priority list established accordingly. The annual priority list
will be proposed for approval at the relevant Committee
Meeting. Identified priority measures will be implemented
subject to funding availability. Areas that have been assessed will
not be reassessed unless there are demonstrable and significant
changes to the use of the area.
5.6
There are several requests that officers have already noted which
would be subjected to this assessment criteria including vehicle
speeds and pedestrian safety on Shirley Drive, speeding on Upper
North Street & Beaconsfield Road & Freshfield Road, traffic
calming on Marmion Road & Round Hill. A full list of requests
can be seen in Appendix 1.
5.7
This method will supersede the Pedestrian Crossing Priority
Assessment. Those top 10 priority locations already identified as
priority areas and agreed at October ETS will continue to be
developed. Other crossings listed on the pedestrian crossing
request list will be revaluated using the new methodology and
assessed alongside other locations including those identified in
above.
5.8
The assessment criteria include collisions and wider issues that
create a barrier to people using active forms of travel, including
the perception of safety and ease of access to shops, services, and
public transport. It is not designed to tackle our higher risk
locations as these have a separate focus and budget to ensure that
locations with the highest collision records are addressed
efficiently.
5.9
This is not a 'Road Danger Reduction Strategy' but is a practical
tool to directly assess and manage local concerns. Our existing
Road Safety Strategy complies with the criteria, in line with other
Local Authorities to reduce road danger. This focuses on reducing
the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads
through prioritisation of specific hotspots where collisions and
injuries are occurring if there is verifiable data supplied by
Sussex Police.
5.10
We will continue to work closely with Sussex Safer Road Partnership
(SSRP) to determine
collision hotspots though our dedicated LTP funded ‘High Risk
Sites’ programme. The process for identification of high risk
sites is set out in Appendix 6.
6.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & CONSULTATION
6
6.1
This methodology has been developed following requests for network
improvements on the communities’ streets. Requests for
improvements will be encouraged from residents and Members via the
Council’s website. Members will be contacted annually to
determine any new requests.
6.2
Localised consultation will take place with Ward Members, local
residents and though our Active and Inclusive Travel Forum
stakeholder groups. The scale and the type of consultation will
depend on the size and location of the intervention.
6.3
Where relevant, improvements will be subject to Traffic Regulation
Orders and the statutory consultation period.
6.4
We will continue to work with our Emergency Services partners and
Sussex Safer Roads Partnership to help develop our priorities and
to share data to ensure issues around enforcement and antisocial
driving behaviour is reported.
7.
CONCLUSION
7
7.1
The Safer, Better Streets – Highway improvement
Prioritisation Framework aligns with key policy and provides a
process to investigate residents’ concerns around traffic
related issues and provides a clear and transparent process for
resolving these issues.
8.
FINANCIAL & OTHER IMPLICATIONS
8
8.1
The capital costs associated to the recommendations in the report
will be funded from the approved capital programme and funded from
a mixture of LTP capital funding, Carbon Neutral Funding (CNF)
capital funding, Section 106 receipts and identified external grant
funding.
8.2
Officers will continue to identify opportunities to maximise
external funding sources to support the implementation of
prioritised measures. External funding is potentially an important
source of income, but funding conditions need to be carefully
considered to ensure that they are compatible with the aims and
objectives of the council.
8.3
Where locations do have external funding allocations, these may be
progressed over other priority locations. If options do not provide
betterment and value for money within the constraints of the
programme, works will be suspended. This decision will be made in
consultation with ward councillors and after all suitable options
have been looked at. Appropriate funding will need to be sought for
any unfunded schemes to be implemented. Should any locations result
in changes of parking incomes, transport officers will discuss
mitigation options with parking officers to ensure no lost parking
revenues are created from changes to a location. Any significant
variations to budget will be reported as part of the
council’s monthly budget monitoring process.
Accountant Consulted:
John Lack 21/12/2022
9.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9
9.1
The council’s powers and duties under the Highways Act 1980
and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be exercised to
secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of all types
of traffic, including pedestrians. The actions detailed in this
report will assist in demonstrating that the council will be able
to comply with its statutory duties.
9.2
The council must follow the rules on consultation set out in
legislation. Such consultation depends on the individual measure
being proposed and will need to be actioned on a case by case
basis. If the consultation requirements are carried out, the legal
implications for the Council are reduced.
9.3
Adequate time must be given for responses to be made to the public
notice and any responses must be considered in finalising
proposals.
Lawyer consulted:
Katie Kam Date: 15/12/22
10.
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
10
10.1
None directly related to this report however accessibility is
considered during the prioritisation process. All infrastructure
will be designed in line with national guidance considering
accessibility issues and vulnerable road users.
10.2
For medium and larger scale improvements individual Equalities
Impact Assessments will be carried out.
11.
SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS
11
11.1
The implementation of measures prioritised as part of this
assessment will support the council’s Local Walking and
Cycling Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and help improve active travel
routes across the city. Providing better, safer streets will
support people to choose active forms of travel, walking is the
most sustainable form of all transport modes as it produces zero
emissions, helping the council’s becoming carbon neutral by
2030. It also improves public health through increased
physical activity.
12.
ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS
12
12.1
None
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
13
Appendices
1. List of
concerns raised at Committee to be assessed through the new
Framework.
2. Safer,
Better Streets – Framework and Prioritisation Methodology
3. School
Crossing Patrol Assessment Criteria
4. School
Streets Assessment Criteria
5. Low
Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) Prioritisation Criteria
6. High Risk
Sites Assessment Criteria
