Agenda item

6.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report summarising the results of a consultation undertaken in August/September 2014 in respect of proposals to improve traffic management in the vicinity of Bridgehouses on the Inner Relief Road (IRR). The report also set out objections and other comments on the proposals and officer responses to them.

6.2

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

having considered the objections and the officer view that the reasons set out in the report for making the TRO outweigh the objections, the TRO be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, with the proposed loading bay to be re-located and without the revocation of no waiting/loading on Chatham Street (i.e. without additional parking provision);

(b)

the scheme be progressed to detailed design and subsequent implementation;

(c)

a TRO be advertised for the removal of parking on Pitsmoor Road to the north of Swinton Street to improve its two-way operation; the removal of the left-turn from Chatham Street to Pitsmoor Road; and altering some of the advisory cycle lanes to mandatory, as appropriate;

(d)

progress feasibility work into a two-way cycle route along Chatham Street

(e)

the respondents be informed accordingly.

6.3

Reasons for Decision

6.3.1

The scheme is part of the “bus hotspots” element of the Better Buses programme, linked to the Sheffield Bus Partnership of which the Council is a member. It contributes to the City Council’s objectives of improving socially-inclusive access to jobs; improving access to mainstream public transport in order to increase its usage. It aims to make bus journeys quicker and more reliable through infrastructure improvements and improving network management and enforceability at critical locations. This scheme should improve journey time and reliability without any detriment to other users.

6.3.2

All objectors and respondents have been written to providing feedback on the issues they raised. There is one outstanding objection. All respondents have been informed of the report and been invited to the meeting.

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.4.1

The proposal has developed iteratively, altering as the design progressed following comments from the Road Safety Auditor, the Cycle Auditor and respondents to the consultation. This has led to the development of the final proposed scheme.

6.4.2

The alternative option would be the ‘do nothing’ option. This would not achieve benefits for bus users or general traffic.

6.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

6.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

6.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

6.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

6.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report summarising the results of a consultation undertaken in August/September 2014 in respect of proposals to improve traffic management in the vicinity of Bridgehouses on the Inner Relief Road (IRR). The report also set out objections and other comments on the proposals and officer responses to them.

6.2

Mick Knott and Graham Alsop, representing Cycle Sheffield, attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. They commented that they had submitted their objections formally.

6.3

It was stated that Cycle Sheffield had not seen the exact figures for the bus delays but suggested they would be around four to six minutes and therefore did not justify spending £700k on the scheme. A much better solution would be the introduction of a Smart Card system which had been discussed but not implemented.

6.4

Cycle Sheffield did not believe there should be any parking in the area concerned. They were unclear on the design of the crossing at the bottom of Pitsmoor Road and asked if a snicket could be introduced there.

6.5

James Burdett, Highways Engineer, confirmed that the crossing would use dropped kerbs following the advice of the Cycle Audit. Mick Knott commented that he had not seen the Cycle Audit. Officers stated that the audit was the note of the meeting with the auditor, which he had seen.

6.6

Mick Knott added that he couldn’t understand why a mandatory cycle lane was not introduced on Chatham Street and this should be 1.5m wide. The bend on Chatham Street used to have a hatching to guide drivers away from cutting the corner and the introduction of a solid white line might be appropriate here.

6.7

The entry and exit points for the car wash on Chatham Street should be reversed. In conclusion, Mick Knott stated that he believed the proposals were advantageous for buses and would disadvantage cyclists and pedestrians. After 6 hours of surveys Cycle Sheffield’s advice to cyclists would be to deal with Bridgehouses as they saw fit.

6.8

In response, Cate Jockel, Senior Transport Planner, commented that a number of changes had been made to the proposals following discussions at the Cycle Forum. The additional Traffic Regulation Order which was recommended would propose removing the existing parking on Pitsmoor Road and banning the left turn from  Chatham Street into Pitsmoor Road

6.9

Councillor Leigh Bramall stated that he had been involved in discussions as to whether Chatham Street could be made two way for cyclists and this was something which should be looked at.

6.10

Cate Jockel added that she accepted the proposals would disadvantage cyclists inbound on Pitsmoor Road but the proposals on Chatham Street would make things better for them. Officers would look at the detailed design in respect of the entry and exit points to the car wash and the road markings from Mowbray Street to Nursery Street. As a parallel project, officers would look into the possibility of making Chatham Street two-way for cyclists.

6.11

Councillor Leigh Bramall commented that he was aware that bus companies were looking into the implementation of a Smart Card System.

6.12

In conclusion, Dick Proctor, Transport Planning Manager, commented that the scheme was justified as the engineering changes proposed would make significant journey time improvements in the area.

6.13

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

having considered the objections and the officer view that the reasons set out in the report for making the TRO outweigh the objections, the TRO be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, with the proposed loading bay to be re-located and without the revocation of no waiting/loading on Chatham Street (i.e. without additional parking provision);

(b)

the scheme be progressed to detailed design and subsequent implementation;

(c)

a TRO be advertised for the removal of parking on Pitsmoor Road to the north of Swinton Street to improve its two-way operation; the removal of the left-turn from Chatham Street to Pitsmoor Road; and altering some of the advisory cycle lanes to mandatory, as appropriate;

(d)

progress feasibility work into a two-way cycle route along Chatham Street

(e)

the respondents be informed accordingly.

6.14

Reasons for Decision

6.14.1

The scheme is part of the “bus hotspots” element of the Better Buses programme, linked to the Sheffield Bus Partnership of which the Council is a member. It contributes to the City Council’s objectives of improving socially-inclusive access to jobs; improving access to mainstream public transport in order to increase its usage. It aims to make bus journeys quicker and more reliable through infrastructure improvements and improving network management and enforceability at critical locations. This scheme should improve journey time and reliability without any detriment to other users.

6.14.2

All objectors and respondents have been written to providing feedback on the issues they raised. There is one outstanding objection. All respondents have been informed of the report and been invited to the meeting.

6.15

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.15.1

The proposal has developed iteratively, altering as the design progressed following comments from the Road Safety Auditor, the Cycle Auditor and respondents to the consultation. This has led to the development of the final proposed scheme.

6.15.2

The alternative option would be the ‘do nothing’ option. This would not achieve benefits for bus users or general traffic.