FOI: York’s ATE Self Assessment


In summer 2022 the Government’s new walking and cycling body Active Travel England (ATE) required all local authorities to complete a self assessment on where hey believed the local authorities progress on active travel to be. ATE would then use these assessments, along with assessments of their own, to help allocate funding and support to local authorities.

ATE were at pains to point out that if a self assessment comes back reflecting poorly on the local authority this wasn’t nessercarily a bad thing – it would just mean that ATE would be able to apply the necessary support to help that authority improve.

Whilst every local authority in England has been required to complete a form, many haven’t been made public with this being at the choice of the authority themselves. We’re aware of Hampshire, Southampton, and Worcestershire actively making their’s available online. York’s wasn’t available initially however a FOI request made by the Cycle Campaign means we now know how they’ve answered.

The original form recieved from the FOI can be read as a PDF here for transparency, however we’ve posted the answers below along with the alternative options for multiple choice which aren’t shown in that PDF.

Please note that question numbering jumps, this is due to certain questions only being skipped based on previous answers.

Section 1: Background

Q1. Are you:
☒ Submitting a response for the first time
☐ Re-submitting additional evidence

Q4. What is the approximate total budget your authority holds for transport this financial year? This includes capital and revenue funding.
£60,000,000

Q5. We recognise that many schemes you deliver will have elements of active travel alongside other areas of focus such as maintenance. In that context:
What is the approximate total funding your authority expects to invest in Active Travel initiatives this financial year? In addition to dedicated active travel budgets, you should include funding from cross-modal schemes, other DfT sources of funding and non-DfT sources.
84, 42, 20, 2

Over the past five years, approximately what proportion of s106 and s278 transport
contributions have been spent on active travel? Please provide a percentage.

5%

What is the approximate total dedicated active travel budget your authority holds in this financial year? You should only include DfT active travel grants and any local funds specifically committed to active travel.
34, 85 ,69, 8

Q6. Please use this box to share any further relevant information in relation to the headcount and budget questions.

The percentage of the total amount of S106 funding for transport schemes that was spent on Active Travel (walking & cycling) schemes from 17/18 to 21/22 Note: the majority of transport S106 spent was for TROs/ Car Club funding/ bus service support, hence the low percentage.

Q7. Are there any funds that you have received from DfT for Active Travel Fund 2 (ATF2) that are not yet contractually committed?
No

Q9. What is the approximate total headcount working on transport at your authority? Please provide the full time equivalent (FTE), including any contingent labour / temporary additional resource.
250

Q10. What is the approximate total headcount working on active travel at your authority? Please provide the full time equivalent (FTE), including any contingent labour / temporary additional resource.
35

Q11. Which of the following schemes have you delivered in the past 3 years or are in the process of delivering? Tick all that apply.
☐ New segregated cycleway (permanent)
☒ New junction treatment
☐ New permanent footway
☒ New shared use (walking & cycling) facilities
☒ Installing segregation to make an existing cycle route safer
☒ Improvements to make an existing walking/cycle route safer
☒ Area-wide traffic management (e.g. modal filtering using ANPR, bollards, planters or similar)
☐ Bus priority measures at single locations (e.g. bus gates)
☒ Provision of secure cycle parking facilities
☒ New road crossings
☐ Restriction or reduction of car parking availability (e.g. controlled parking zones)
☐ School streets
☐ None of the above

Q12. Which of the following schemes have you consulted on over the past 12 months or have plans to consult on? Tick all that apply.
☐ New segregated cycleway (permanent)
☒ New junction treatment
☐ New permanent footway
☒ New shared use (walking & cycling) facilities
☒ Installing segregation to make an existing cycle route safer
☒ Improvements to make an existing walking/cycle route safer
☒ Area-wide traffic management (e.g. modal filtering using ANPR, bollards, planters or similar)
☐ Bus priority measures at single locations (e.g. bus gates)
☐ Provision of secure cycle parking facilities
☒ New road crossings
☒ Restriction or reduction of car parking availability (e.g. controlled parking zones)
☒ School streets
☐ None of the above

Q13. Since the publication of LTN 1/20 guidance, have you installed or proposed any new infrastructure which is not LTN 1/20 compliant?
No

Q14. Do you agree that no scheme, now or in the future, will be removed prematurely?
The Network Management Duty requires real-world feedback to be taken account. This means schemes should be retained and adjusted to make them work. Schemes should not be removed unless there is substantial evidence to support this.

Yes, I agree to the above statement

Section 2: Local leadership and support

Q15. This question seeks to understand how supportive your leaders and elected members are of active travel. Please review the criteria for each of the levels and consider which of the criteria your authority satisfies, and which are yet to be met. It is likely that your authority will not fit neatly into one level, so please select the one that best reflects your authority.
(Click on headings to reveal criteria for levels not selected)

Level 0

-Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are not supportive of active travel.
-Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are not committed to increasing active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
-My authority does not have clear policies in place for Active Travel
My authority does not have a significant track record of delivering Active Travel interventions.
-My authority does not require developers to deliver ambitious active travel infrastructure as part of the planning process.

Level 1

Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are supportive of active travel.
– Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are committed to increasing active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
– My authority does not have a significant track record on road space reallocation schemes, but other schemes have been delivered.
– There are public commitments to high quality schemes and/or reallocation of road space.
– My authority has fewer than 5 of the policies listed in place (see policy list)
– My authority recognises the need to improve active travel infrastructure via the planning process but rarely refuses development based on a lack of focus on active and sustainable transport.

Level 2

– Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are highly supportive of active travel
– Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are committed to increasing active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
– My authority has a track record of completing ambitious, LTN 1/20 / MfS compliant active travel schemes.
– My authority has a small number of road capacity reallocation schemes.
– My authority has some policies in place to support and deliver an increase in active travel, covering between 5 and 8 of those listed (see policy list).
– My authority has recognised the need to adopt new approaches to planning such as ‘Decide and Provide’ and in adoptable standards by adopting LTN1/20 / MfS documentation to help support the position in insisting but is yet to do so.

Level 3

– Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are strong proponents of ambitious, LTN 1/20-compliant active travel schemes.
Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are very committed to increasing active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
– My authority has a track record of completing active travel schemes.
– My authority has many road capacity reallocation schemes.
– My authority has many supportive transport policies and plans in place to support and deliver an increase in active travel, covering between 8 and 12 those listed (see policy list).
– To improve outputs through the planning process my authority has formally adopted new approaches to planning such as ‘Decide and Provide’ and in adoptable standards by adopting LTN1/20 / MfS documentation for new developments.

Level 4

-Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are England-leading proponents of active travel, it is clearly a top priority for the Council.
-Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are very committed to increasing (or surpassing) active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
My authority has a track record of completing active travel schemes including many road capacity reallocation schemes.
My authority has multiple supportive transport policies and plans in place to support and deliver an increase in active travel, covering all of those listed (see policy list).
My authority has adopted new standards as its own and uses progressive planning policies to regularly challenge development that does not adhere to the standards expected.

List of policies as mentioned above

Transport policies that prioritise active travel as a sensible, everyday option for short journeys, on a broad suite of local policies, including on:
– area-wide traffic management schemes that reallocate or filter road space in accordance with LTN1/20
– restrictions on pavement parking
– car parking restrictions (including controlled parking zones and removal of parking spaces)
– adoption of Moving Traffic Offences
– adoption of Key Route Network management (MCAs only)
– 20mph limits on residential streets (e.g. around schools)
– clean air zone
– congestion charging zones
– zero or ultra-low emissions zones
Planning policies that support active travel, walking, wheeling, and cycling are clearly the highest priority modes for short journeys, e.g.:
– site allocation plans favour residential sites near employment centres and retail development of 15 or 20-minute neighbourhoods
– cargo or freight delivery using active travel modes
– housing developments expected to deliver to appropriate and emerging standards such as LTN1/20 and MfS.

Q19. You have selected Level 3 as being the most suitable for your Authority for local leadership and support. Please select from the following statement which criteria your authority meets or exceeds.
☒ Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are strong proponents of ambitious, LTN 1/20-compliant active travel schemes.
☒ Members (including leader and transport portfolio lead) in my authority are very committed to increasing active travel in line with the government vision set out in Gear Change.
☒ My authority has a track record of completing active travel schemes.
☒ My authority has many road capacity reallocation schemes.
☐ My authority has many supportive transport policies and plans in place to support and deliver an increase in active travel, covering between 8 and 12 those listed (see policy list).
☐ To improve outputs through the planning process my authority has formally adopted new approaches to planning such as ‘Decide and Provide’ and in adoptable standards by adopting LTN1/20 / MfS documentation for new developments.

Q22. Briefly describe what supporting evidence you have available to justify why you have selected the level and Q23. Please provide links to any supporting evidence here.

The administration at City of York Council is currently a Liberal Democrat and Green party coalition with the leader of the Green party appointed as the executive member for Transport. We have provided evidence which encompasses a range of supporting areas to level 3 with a strong indication that the executive member for transport is wholly in support of Active Travel activities in line with the party manifesto and the Council Plan. City of York will be home to Active Travel England and senior Council members have already met with ATE with an engaged approach. Elected members are keen to see a modal shift within the city and fully support actioning officers to deliver key changes.
The evidence provided is summarised below:

(1) Within this section we have provided evidence from both the council plan and individual manifesto promises from the respective parties in power at city of York. This includes statements from the leader of the council and the member for transport. Across both party manifestos and the council plan there is a strong emphasis of support for Active Travel in both infrastructure and behavioural change.
Exec Member for Transport, Manifesto (Transport – 2019)
Exec Member for Transport, Manifesto (Local Plan – 2019)
Exec Member for Transport, York Press – Active Travel Commitment
Leader of Council, Manifesto (overall – 2019)
Leader / Exec member for Transport, statement on Active Travel support (York Press – 2022)
Leader of Council, Statement on active travel investment (Highways-News – 2022)

(2) We have provided images and supporting articles of the member for transport in several scenarios largely relating to active travel activities and their support for ward proposals to improve these activities.
Exec Member for Transport, Road Safety statement – York Greens
Exec Member for Transport, TIER access Scheme- CYC
Exec Member for Transport, Statement
Exec Member for Transport, Statement

(3) Evidence has been provided to inform of supportive activities from the elected member for health and adult social care. The noted elements are relating to active travel encouragement to improve health.
Exec Member for Health & ASC, ‘Health Trainer Service’
Exec Member for Health & ASC, ‘Live well York’

(4) Within this section you will find evidence relating to active travel bids, current budget positioning for transport and the Council plan up to 2023. The plan encompasses several strategies and policies that seek to embed active travel and sustainable transport options within the work that officers deliver across the city.
York Council, Active Travel – Sustainable Transport
Joint Budget Decision Session, Transport (Page 21, 64 – onwards)
York Council Plan

(5) This section provides our Active travel tranche 2 bid details.
Active Travel Tranche 2 Bid

(6) This section provides information on our ongoing devolution deal and intentions to closely work with North Yorkshire County Council on active travel activities amongst other elements within the deal.
Devolution Deal – (Active Travel – P.22 )CoYC, NYCC:

Section 3: LCWIP Maturity

Q25. This question seeks to understand how developed your Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs), or equivalent, are, including their coverage and status of delivery. Please review the criteria for each of the levels and consider which of the criteria your authority satisfies, and which are yet to be met. It is likely that your authority will not fit neatly into one level, so please select the one that best suits your authority.
(Click on headings to reveal criteria for levels not selected)

Level 0

– My authority does not have an LCWIP of any sort, either in development or implemented
– My authority currently does not have any intention of developing an LCWIP

Level 1

– My authority has done one or more of the following:
– Started development and have mature drafts of LCWIP(s) for all major population centres
– Already produced and agreed LCWIP(s) which cover multiple major population centres
– Started delivering some elements of the LCWIP(s) we have produced
– Commenced developing a 10-year pipeline of active travel interventions that includes consideration of the types of infrastructure required to help unlock development sites

Level 2

– My authority has one or more LCWIPs in development and:
– LCWIPs for major population centres are finalised and published online
– Existing LCWIP(s) cover around half of the LA area by population
– The schemes in them are compliant with LTN 1/20
– Held early engagement with a limited number of stakeholders or have specific plans in place to do so
– Started delivering some elements of the LCWIP(s)
– Has a draft 10-year pipeline of active travel schemes that are ready to be delivered
– 10-year plan that considers growth areas and the active travel schemes that will help unlock those sites

Level 3

– My authority has finalised LCWIP(s) and:
– Most are published online
– The schemes in them are compliant with LTN 1/20
– Collectively the LCWIPs(s) cover most of the population in the Local Authority area
– Completed extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders
– Started delivering some elements of the LCWIP
– An agreed 10-year pipeline of active travel schemes
– Schemes that help to unlock development sites have been developed and designed to a sufficient stage of readiness for development contributions to be sought at appropriate levels

Level 4

– My authority has finalised LCWIP(s) and:
– All are published online
– Collectively the LCWIP(s) covers most of the population in the Local Authority area
– Completed extensive engagement with a range of stakeholders
– Has plans for continued stakeholder engagement
– Delivery of the LCWIP(s) are well underway
– Delivered multiple priority schemes as part of an agreed 10-year pipeline
– Regularly ensures Developers fund appropriate active travel schemes

Q27. You have selected Level 1 as being the most suitable for your authority for LCWIP maturity. Please select from the following statement which criteria your authority meets or exceeds.
☒ Started development and have mature drafts of LCWIP(s) for all major population centres
☐ Already produced and agreed LCWIP(s) which cover multiple major population centres
☒ Started delivering some elements of the LCWIP(s) we have produced
☒ Commenced developing a 10-year pipeline of active travel interventions that includes consideration of the types of infrastructure required to help unlock development sites

Q32. Briefly describe what supporting evidence you have available to justify why you have selected the level and Q33. Please provide links to any supporting evidence here.
York had already adopted a strategic cycle route network and scheme prioritisation methodology prior to LCWIPs coming into being. The first version was adopted in 2012 and an enhanced version produced and adopted in 2016. We have continued to use this to identify schemes for delivery and as a pipeline for funding bids whilst we develop a full LCWIP for the entire York unitary authority area.
Committee report
Proposed strategic network map
Proposed prioritisation methodology:
Committee Report
Schematic Strategic Cycle Network map
Example of Strategic Route quality assessment
Updated Strategic Cycle Scheme Prioritisation List

We commissioned a draft LCWIP scoping report in 2020 (link below) and are currently in the process of procuring consultants to prepare a full LCWIP. We are also in the process of setting up a steering group to manage the LCWIP preparation process. Elements of the scoping report have been built into the delivery of schemes under the tranche2 funding.
LCWIP Draft Scoping Report

Our Public Rights of Way section have undertaken a similar exercise for the PROW network when they produced an exemplar Rights of Way Improvement Plan with some funding secured from the Countryside Agency back in 2004 this comprised an audit of the network and identification of improvements which were needed to bring it up to standard in terms of route quality, connectivity, and accessibility.
Unfortunately, this was never able to be formally adopted due to resource constraints. The ROWIP was updated in 2010 but is still in a draft form.

All of the above draft plans will feed into the LCWIP and the draft scoping report will be reviewed as the first stage of the production of the full LCWIP. We are aiming to have a completed LCWIP by the middle of 2023 and this will form a daughter document for our next LTP which we will start fully developing as soon as the full guidance is published by the DfT. In the meantime, we have developed a draft Local Transport Strategy which together with a scheme and delivery plan will form the majority of the LTP.

Section 4: Schemes Delivered

Q35. This question seeks to understand your track record for delivering capital and revenue active travel schemes, and the level of complexity of schemes delivered. Please review the criteria for each of the levels and consider which of the criteria your authority satisfies, and which are yet to be met. It is likely that your authority will not fit neatly into one level, so please select the one that best suits your authority. Please refer to Annex A when answering this question.
(Click on headings to reveal criteria for levels not selected)

Level 0

My authority has delivered a small number of active travel infrastructure schemes that are outside LTN1/20 design guidance
– My authority has delivered schemes that are isolated interventions
– My authority rarely requires developers to deliver active travel schemes
– My authority has delivered schemes that are ranked as being lower complexity such as simple footway improvements, shared use facilities, cycleways in low density areas (see Annex A)
– My authority is delivering revenue schemes, most of which are not on track to be delivered on time

Level 1

– My authority has delivered a number of LTN1/20-compliant low complexity active travel infrastructure schemes (see Annex A)
– My authority meets the minimum statutory duty for consultation before implementing schemes
– My authority has delivered schemes that are not part of an integrated network
– My authority rarely requires developers to deliver active travel schemes but has isolated examples of
success in this regard
– My authority has delivered a small proportion of capital schemes on time
-My authority is delivering revenue schemes, some of which are on track to be delivered on time

Level 2

– My authority has delivered a high number of LTN1/20-compliant low complexity schemes
– My authority has also delivered a small number of medium complexity schemes
– My authority meets at least the minimum statutory duty for consultation before implementing schemes, with more comprehensive consultation for some schemes
– My authority is beginning to deliver an integrated network and this includes requiring developers to fund and contribute to this network through the planning process
– My authority has delivered some capital schemes on time
– My authority has delivered some capital schemes on time
– My authority is delivering revenue schemes, most of which are on track to be delivered on time

Level 3

– My authority has delivered a number of LTN1/20-compliant high complexity schemes, supplemented by a high volume of low complexity schemes appropriate to their location
– My authority conducts continuous engagement and consults on all schemes before implementation, going above the minimum statutory duty
– My authority is working towards an integrated active travel network including via the planning process and ensuring developers play an active role
– My authority is delivering capital schemes most of which were delivered on time
– My authority is delivering revenue schemes, most of which are on track to be delivered on time

Level 4

– My authority has delivered a high number of LTN1/20-compliant high complexity schemes
– My authority conducts continuous engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders inc. businesses and hard to reach groups (BME, young people, disability groups) and consults on all schemes before implementation, exceeding the minimum statutory duty and ensuring representative sample is reached of local residents
– The schemes my authority has delivered, including lower complexity schemes, form an extensive developed network of active travel infrastructure across the authority region
– My authority has delivered all capital schemes on time
– My authority is delivering revenue schemes, all of which are on track to be delivered on time
Note: Delivery of low complexity schemes does not exclude an authority from being level 4 however they should not have been delivered in isolation and should only have been delivered as part of network of connected interventions i.e. a walking corridor that incorporates connected interventions to deliver highly complex or ambitious schemes where they are necessary to deliver this.

Q38. You have selected Level 2 as being the most suitable for your authority for scheme delivery. Please select from the following statement which criteria your authority meets or exceeds.
☒ My authority has delivered a high number of LTN1/20-compliant low complexity schemes
☒ My authority has also delivered a small number of medium complexity schemes
☒ My authority meets at least the minimum statutory duty for consultation before implementing schemes, with more comprehensive consultation for some schemes
☒ My authority has delivered some capital schemes on time
☒ My authority is delivering revenue schemes, most of which are on track to be delivered on time

Q42. Briefly describe what supporting evidence you have available to justify why you have selected the level and Q43. Please provide links to any supporting evidence here.
We believe that City of York would best fit into level 2 despite not fitting all criteria within the section. As a Council we have always promoted active travel modes and adopted a hierarchy of road users in our first LTP which had the active modes and people with disabilities at the top. As a result our modal splits for active travel have traditionally exceeded those of the majority of other local authority areas.

The iTravel and road safety teams successfully delivered several travel behaviour change schemes recently, as well as delivering ongoing travel plan support.

E-Cycle Switch has been established quickly, helping over 200 people to try an electric bike in York. 54 have gone on to use our discount to buy one. Modal shift has been recorded with feedback surveys, estimating that 7600 car journeys per year have been replaced (or 13 tonnes of CO2).

Reward schemes have encouraged people to switch journey modes and maintain sustainable travel. Formerly Love to Ride (1000+ participants) and currently Better Points (1400+ participants) were both delivered on time. A Better Points feedback survey indicates 31% of participants walking more often and 19% cycling more.

Our cycle training services are delivered internally, with Bikeability child training achieving high numbers (e.g. 478 children at L3). Urban Cycle Skills trains adults and families, with a feedback survey suggesting a marked increase in confidence and 75% saying they had increased their cycling.

As part of our Ward Highways Programme (which is a 4 year programme worth £2million and devolves funding to each ward for elected member use to address pertinent issues affecting the ward communities), we ringfenced £500k for Active Travel schemes. This approach was developed to encourage elected members to consider and engage with residents on Active Travel matters which would support the overall development across the city. 3 years into the current programme, we have allocated over £600,000 worth of ward funding to Active Travel schemes.

Evidence provided for this section predominantly covers executive member reports that have passed through our decision session process. For ease, they have been labelled and a summary noted below:

Directly Supportive
1) iTravel Executive Report: This progress report is an indication of the delivery of schemes through our iTravel team. Within it, they have provided an update on schemes developed to support a modal shift such as the E-Cycle Switch scheme. They have also worked with an external communications company to develop a campaign for 22/23 to promote active travel infrastructure and a travel tracking app called ‘better points’ which rewards users for travelling sustainably.
iTravel executive report

2) Coppergate TTRO: The Coppergate TTRO was implemented as part of the COVID019 response for the city. The carriageway was reduced to provide improved amenities for cyclists and pedestrians to support social distancing activities. The original TTRO was due to expire in December 21 but has been extended due to the benefits noted during the trial.
Coppergate TTRO report

3) The Groves LTN: We have been working closely with residents in the Groves over the past 4 years to improve numerous concerns within the local area. In February 2020 we consulted with stakeholders about the trialling of road closure points and other supportive activities. From September 2020 we have trialled closures within the area allowing residents to develop community initiatives and has seen support from residents due to an improved quality of life with the reduction of congestion and improved viability of active travel options.
Groves – LTN

4) Navigation Road LTN: Since October 2021 we have been carrying out a trial on navigation road, this scheme introduced a one way plug to reduce through traffic and introduced both segregated cycle lanes and improvements to bollards at the nearby Hungate bridge to support the Cities North / South cycle route.
Navigation road – LTN

5) Active Travel Project Scopes: This document provides a background / overview of the current planned active travel schemes that we are delivering from tranche 2 of the active travel funding. Within it, there several supportive schemes from the intended LCWIP due to be delivered and indicates the current intentions with the programme in terms of priority and management.
ATP – Project scopes

6) Tadcaster Road Update: This document provides update on the Tadcaster Road scheme which seeks to significantly improve cycle infrastructure along this key route into the City.
Tadcaster road update

Fringe Supportive
7) ATP Webpage: This site indicates several the key project spaces on the website with information provided for city stakeholders to understand what we are doing and give updates where possible.
ATP Webpage

8) DEFRA Air Quality: City of York has received grant funding from DEFRA to trial a pedestrian portering / last mile delivery service within the city. This trial will see active travel and sustainable transport options used to reduce fossil fuel powered HGV / LGV’s within the city walls in order to combat air quality issues.
DEFRA Air Quality Study

9) Castle Gateway: We have been developed a masterplan for city centre York that would see a movement towards more community build aspects. This redevelopment will see a significant number of changes within the local highways infrastructure and council facilities to improve amenities for both pedestrians and cyclists with a strong emphasis on improving active travel elements within the city centre.
Castle gateway

10) Micromobility – Ebike provision: City of York has been participating in the trial of Escooters since November 2020. In February we extended our provision to include Ebikes within the city and are in discussions about the future potential of Ecargo-bike provisions for businesses.
Micromobility – Expansion to Ebike

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s