Agenda item

10.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director-City Futures setting out an analysis of the effect of an 18-month Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) used to implement specific interventions on the highway as part of the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route. The ETO and interventions were implemented in May 2022, with the ETO due to expire in November 2023.

The report included the results of formal consultation, receipt of objections, along with feedback received pre and post formal consultation. The consultation sought the views of residents, visitors to the area, businesses, local groups, institutions, and statutory groups. Further monitoring and evaluation of the scheme had been carried out to help quantify the outcomes of the scheme.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:

•       Consider the objections to interventions delivered through the ETO, in terms of how they relate to the wider scheme, its overall aims and objectives and how they tie-in with wider Sheffield City Council strategies and policy.

•       Consider the wider monitoring and evaluation of the scheme including current and potential future outcomes of the interventions delivered.

•       Having considered the objections and outcomes of the scheme, approve the implementation of the SVCR in its entirety. In other words, agree that all interventions associated with the ETO should be made permanent.

•       Note that the Council’s Traffic Regulations team will inform all consultation respondents accordingly.

•       Note that if recommendation to implement interventions on a permanent basis is approved, officers will write to all properties within the boundary of the initial larger consultation area to inform them. Information about the scheme will be included, but the Council will make it clear that this is not a further consultation exercise. The aim is to have this letter distributed within 2 weeks of the recommendations being taken forward.

•       Authorise officers to progress the formal revocation of those elements of the ETO which were not implemented

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

A truly multi-modal transport network that is built to a high standard, offers inclusive economic, social and environmental opportunities and benefits to everyone, regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity or background. Furthermore, safer, cleaner and lower traffic routes can make the city a better place to live, work, learn and play.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

Focusing solely on the interventions associated with the ETO, there are three main approaches to consider:

•       Make all interventions permanent.

•       Remove all interventions and return the highway to its former state.

•       Make some interventions permanent and remove others.

 10.4.2

There may be some more nuanced/minor alterations to signage and lines that can be considered along some sections of the route. However, this has already taken place following early stages of consultation and there has been very little correspondence to suggest that this would make a significant difference for individuals or organisations along the route corridor.

10.4.3

Remove all interventions and return the highway to its former state.

10.4.4

This approach reintroduces through-traffic along all roads where interventions have been implemented. The increased vehicle traffic, and movements across junctions where interventions are present. This would mean that much of the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route (SVCR) is longer LTN1/20 compliant and therefore less safe, less coherent, less comfortable, less attractive, and therefore less likely to encourage modal shift away from motorised vehicle traffic to active modes. It would undermine those permanent interventions that are already in place as the route would essentially become disconnected.

10.4.5

This would be at odds with Sheffield City Council strategy and policy including transport and net zero targets. It sends a message that the speed and convenience of those travelling by private motor vehicle is a priority over the provision of infrastructure that benefits those individuals that do not have access to a car or whose choose to travel by bike or on foot. All other benefits of the scheme, as outline in section 1 of the report, would be undermined. This would lessen improved amenity and worsen the environment for walking and cycling. Ultimately, these types of funded proposals exist to support all transport users across the entire network. With current and planned developed taking place within and near the city centre, these schemes represent a real opportunity to deal with expected increases in demand for transport without an overreliance on car dependency. Outside of the Connecting Sheffield programme, there current exists no other proposals that would address these issues.

10.4.6

Modify/remove some interventions.

10.4.7

It is not possible to make the ETO permanent while also modifying the proposal owing to restrictions on the Council’s ability to do so per regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The Council has the option of either making the implemented scheme permanent or not at all.

10.4.8

It is possible to consider the effect of potential modifications. While they are not presented to the committee as an alternative option within this report, such a proposal could be taken forward as a modification subsequent to the recommended scheme being permanently implemented (should the committee so decide). However, this would incur significant resource implications in terms of issuing an entirely new traffic order, carrying out additional public engagement and further demand on officer time.

10.4.9

Furthermore, removal of a single intervention along the SVCR has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the entire scheme. For example, taking out the Cherry St/Shoreham St filter reintroduces increased traffic volumes along Shoreham St. This means that the route quality declines for active travel users at this location and therefore the full route becomes disconnected and less attractive for people travelling by bike or on foot.

10.4.10

The exception to this is the Hackthorne Rd/Scarsdale Rd intervention as this is not an imperative element of the scheme. However, data clearly shows that this intervention has been successful at removing significant levels of through traffic on Hackthorne Rd and adjoining residential streets

10.4.11

Little London Rd has received more public feedback than any other element of the scheme. If the modal filter was removed here, the road would effectively become less accessible for people on bike or on foot. This is particularly true where the carriageway and footway are extremely narrow (under the rail bridge). Re-opening Little London Rd to through-traffic effectively means that the SVCR would end where the walking and cycling route from Saxon Rd meets Little London Rd. The long-term vision to extend the SVCR to Dore and Totley Station and To Meadowhead, would we much more difficult to realise.

10.4.12

The overall impact of removing any of the ETO interventions is similar in nature (if not scale) to the removal of all interventions along the route as highlighted above.

10.1.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director-City Futures setting out an analysis of the effect of an 18-month Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) used to implement specific interventions on the highway as part of the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route. The ETO and interventions were implemented in May 2022, with the ETO due to expire in November 2023.

10.1.2

The report included the results of formal consultation, receipt of objections, along with feedback received pre and post formal consultation. The consultation sought the views of residents, visitors to the area, businesses, local groups, institutions, and statutory groups. Further monitoring and evaluation of the scheme had been carried out to help quantify the outcomes of the scheme.

10.1.3

Members asked questions about the materials used initially to enforce the road closures that were later replaced with concrete blocks. Assurances were sought that lessons had been learnt following the vandalism of the original structures and that officers would look for a way to make the concrete blocks more aesthetically pleasing. It was agreed that the appearance was a key consideration, hence the use of planters in the first instance and that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) would be approached for funding.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:

•       Consider the objections to interventions delivered through the ETO, in terms of how they relate to the wider scheme, its overall aims and objectives and how they tie-in with wider Sheffield City Council strategies and policy.

•       Consider the wider monitoring and evaluation of the scheme including current and potential future outcomes of the interventions delivered.

•       Having considered the objections and outcomes of the scheme, approve the implementation of the SVCR in its entirety. In other words, agree that all interventions associated with the ETO should be made permanent.

•       Note that the Council’s Traffic Regulations team will inform all consultation respondents accordingly.

•       Note that if recommendation to implement interventions on a permanent basis is approved, officers will write to all properties within the boundary of the initial larger consultation area to inform them. Information about the scheme will be included, but the Council will make it clear that this is not a further consultation exercise. The aim is to have this letter distributed within 2 weeks of the recommendations being taken forward.

•       Authorise officers to progress the formal revocation of those elements of the ETO which were not implemented

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

A truly multi-modal transport network that is built to a high standard, offers inclusive economic, social and environmental opportunities and benefits to everyone, regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity or background. Furthermore, safer, cleaner and lower traffic routes can make the city a better place to live, work, learn and play.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

Focusing solely on the interventions associated with the ETO, there are three main approaches to consider:

•       Make all interventions permanent.

•       Remove all interventions and return the highway to its former state.

•       Make some interventions permanent and remove others.

 10.4.2

There may be some more nuanced/minor alterations to signage and lines that can be considered along some sections of the route. However, this has already taken place following early stages of consultation and there has been very little correspondence to suggest that this would make a significant difference for individuals or organisations along the route corridor.

10.4.3

Remove all interventions and return the highway to its former state.

10.4.4

This approach reintroduces through-traffic along all roads where interventions have been implemented. The increased vehicle traffic, and movements across junctions where interventions are present. This would mean that much of the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route (SVCR) is longer LTN1/20 compliant and therefore less safe, less coherent, less comfortable, less attractive, and therefore less likely to encourage modal shift away from motorised vehicle traffic to active modes. It would undermine those permanent interventions that are already in place as the route would essentially become disconnected.

10.4.5

This would be at odds with Sheffield City Council strategy and policy including transport and net zero targets. It sends a message that the speed and convenience of those travelling by private motor vehicle is a priority over the provision of infrastructure that benefits those individuals that do not have access to a car or whose choose to travel by bike or on foot. All other benefits of the scheme, as outline in section 1 of the report, would be undermined. This would lessen improved amenity and worsen the environment for walking and cycling. Ultimately, these types of funded proposals exist to support all transport users across the entire network. With current and planned developed taking place within and near the city centre, these schemes represent a real opportunity to deal with expected increases in demand for transport without an overreliance on car dependency. Outside of the Connecting Sheffield programme, there current exists no other proposals that would address these issues.

10.4.6

Modify/remove some interventions.

10.4.7

It is not possible to make the ETO permanent while also modifying the proposal owing to restrictions on the Council’s ability to do so per regulation 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The Council has the option of either making the implemented scheme permanent or not at all.

10.4.8

It is possible to consider the effect of potential modifications. While they are not presented to the committee as an alternative option within this report, such a proposal could be taken forward as a modification subsequent to the recommended scheme being permanently implemented (should the committee so decide). However, this would incur significant resource implications in terms of issuing an entirely new traffic order, carrying out additional public engagement and further demand on officer time.

10.4.9

Furthermore, removal of a single intervention along the SVCR has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the entire scheme. For example, taking out the Cherry St/Shoreham St filter reintroduces increased traffic volumes along Shoreham St. This means that the route quality declines for active travel users at this location and therefore the full route becomes disconnected and less attractive for people travelling by bike or on foot.

10.4.10

The exception to this is the Hackthorne Rd/Scarsdale Rd intervention as this is not an imperative element of the scheme. However, data clearly shows that this intervention has been successful at removing significant levels of through traffic on Hackthorne Rd and adjoining residential streets

10.4.11

Little London Rd has received more public feedback than any other element of the scheme. If the modal filter was removed here, the road would effectively become less accessible for people on bike or on foot. This is particularly true where the carriageway and footway are extremely narrow (under the rail bridge). Re-opening Little London Rd to through-traffic effectively means that the SVCR would end where the walking and cycling route from Saxon Rd meets Little London Rd. The long-term vision to extend the SVCR to Dore and Totley Station and To Meadowhead, would we much more difficult to realise.

10.4.12

The overall impact of removing any of the ETO interventions is similar in nature (if not scale) to the removal of all interventions along the route as highlighted above.