Prioritisation of Road Safety Improvements
North Lanarkshire Council · 8 February 2023
Back to Environment and Climate Change Committee — 8 February 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Lanarkshire Council Report Environment and Climate Change Committee Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 08/02/23 Prioritisation of Road Safety Improvements From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer of Place E-mail woodg@northlan.gov.uk Telephone Gary Wood 07939 284954 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval for implementing a revised policy for prioritising traffic calming and pedestrian crossing requests. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee: 1. Recognise the importance of having an updated, fair, and transparent assessment process for road safety requests to ensure the Council’s finite resources are targeted to the areas in communities with the highest risk setting. 2. Approve the policy for prioritising traffic calming and pedestrian crossing requests as outlined in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve the health and wellbeing of our communities Ambition statement (17) Ensure we keep our environment clean, safe, and attractive
Page 2
1. Background 1.1 The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 39, makes provision for each local authority to carry out studies into accidents and to take steps to both reduce and prevent accidents. This places a duty on each local authority to: a) Carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or parts of roads, other than trunk roads within their area; and b) in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents. To comply with its obligations, the Council maintains a road accident database using information provided by Police Scotland, which is updated monthly. 1.2 The Council frequently receives requests for a wide range of road safety improvements. These requests, which typically exceed 200 per annum, are predominantly for traffic calming measures or pedestrian crossings. It is not possible for the Council to action all requests within available budgets. 1.3 On 26 May 2011, the Planning and Transportation Committee approved the traffic calming priority list. These were sites with more than five injury accidents over a three- year period. In the time since the traffic calming priority list was established, many attributing factors and considerations have changed. Basing the need for road safety improvements on a threshold of five injury accidents over a three-year period has its limitations. Roads that are longer in length than others have a greater likelihood of reaching the threshold for road safety interventions. Furthermore, it is often suggested that focusing the assessment process solely on the accident history at a location, is a reactive approach to accident investigation and prevention. 1.4 At present, the Council does not have an approved policy for prioritising pedestrian crossing requests. For many years, the industry standard process to determine the need for a pedestrian crossing, has been based on the degree of conflict between pedestrians (P) and vehicles (V). This is known as the PV2 assessment, and surveys are undertaken to identify the four peak hours with the greatest conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. 1.5 The Council has continued to use the PV2 assessment as the basis for prioritising requests for pedestrian crossings. However, it is not without its limitations as every pedestrian is considered to have the same requirements, irrespective of age or ability. Recent studies have found that vulnerable pedestrian groups feel that their road safety needs are not being met by the PV2 assessment process. 1.6 Due to the limitations of existing processes for prioritising road safety improvements, including requests for traffic calming and pedestrian crossings, it was deemed necessary to develop alternative methodologies that address community needs and make better use of the Council’s resources. 2. Report 2.1 Although the Council typically receives more than 200 requests for traffic calming measures or pedestrian crossings, it is only possible to implement around five schemes per year due to budget constraints. Therefore, it is essential that there is a fair and transparent process to rank and prioritise schemes.
Page 3
2.2 A new staged assessment and prioritising methodology is proposed which would apply to both traffic calming and pedestrian crossing requests. Thresholds would be applied at each stage to determine whether a request proceeds to the next stage of investigation. This methodology builds upon both the existing approved traffic calming process and the PV2 assessment methodology, but with new considerations added. This enables the assessment process to take better account of road safety and environmental factors on a site-by-site basis. It also enables the pedestrian crossing assessments to be closer aligned to new national guidance. 2.3 The proposed assessment criteria for pedestrian crossings and traffic calming are provided in the appendices. 2.4 On completion of the assessment process, any site meeting the relevant total threshold value will be ranked and prioritised for undertaking feasibility appraisals and, where appropriate, detailed design work. It should be noted that triggering the required thresholds will not guarantee that a site progresses to a feasibility assessment and detailed design. The number of sites targeted each year will be dependent on the available budgets. 2.5 Those locations that trigger the thresholds, but are not taken forward to the implementation stage, will be retained on the priority list. The priority list will be updated each March to determine which schemes are taken forward for implementation during the forthcoming financial year. 2.6 Given the high number of requests received each year, and the limited number of schemes that can be implemented, repeat investigations will not be undertaken at the same location within an 18-month period. These would only be undertaken if there were to be a material and demonstrable change to traffic conditions. 2.7 Each year, there will be a review of Police Scotland’s accident data across the entire North Lanarkshire road network. This will identify accident clusters and inform the Council’s own priorities for road safety improvements. Any identified accident clusters will go through the proposed assessment methodology and may alter the priority ranking list. It should be noted that the accident history at every site on the priority list will not be routinely revisited each year. 3. Measures of success 3.1 Reduction in the number and severity of recorded road injury accidents across the Council’s network. 4. Supporting documentation Appendix 1 – Scoring Matrix Appendix 2 – Assessment Methodology Flow Chart Pamela Humphries Chief of Officer of Place
Page 4
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The Council’s Road Safety budget is typically £400,000 per annum which is part of in the Service’s 5-year Capital programme – 2021/22 to 2025/26 budget allocation. This may be supplemented by external sources, should annual funding bids be successful. All projects identified and prioritised as part of this process will only be taken forward if budgets are available at that time. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐
Page 5
5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services.
Page 6
Appendix 1 Scoring Matrix Stage 0 - Pedestrian Crossing Demand This stage applies only to requests for pedestrian crossings. Requests for traffic calming measures proceed straight to Stage 1. To determine the need for a pedestrian crossing, surveys will be undertaken to identify the four peak hours with the greatest conflict between pedestrians (P) and vehicles (V). This is known as the PV2 assessment. For example, if there were an average of 50 pedestrians and 600 vehicles recorded in the four busiest hours, the PV2 value would be 50(P) x 600(V) x 600(V) = 18 million. Any site with a PV2 of 60 million or greater will proceed to Stage 1 for further investigation as this will satisfy the minimum threshold score of 80, which is calculated by dividing the PV2 value by 750,000. Stage 1 – Road Safety Indicators For every request relating to traffic calming, speeding concerns, road safety issues or pedestrian crossings, a seven-day classified traffic volume and survey will be undertaken. This survey will record the two-way traffic flows, the vehicle composition, and establish the average bi-directional 85th percentile speed. Police Scotland’s database will be interrogated to establish the accident history, including those including pedestrians, at the locations under consideration. This review will be for the most recent five-year period that data is available. To ensure that the accident history is scalable, and the results are proportionate, the number of accidents will be measured against the length of the street or area under consideration. The following scoring methodology will be applied to all sites to determine whether they meet the Stage 1 threshold score for Road Safety Indicators. Criteria Description Score Accident History (per accident for the most recent 5 year period) Slight 20 Serious 40 Fatal 80 Speed (percentage over speed limit) 0% - 10% 5 10% - 20% 10 20% - 30% 20 30% - 50% 30 50% and above 40 Traffic Volume (average daily flow) Per 1000 vehicles 1 Vehicle Composition >10% HGVs (7.5t and above) 5 STAGE 1 THRESHOLD 80
Page 7
Only sites that score more than the Stage 1 threshold will proceed to Stage 2 for further investigation to identify potential traffic calming measures. Pedestrian crossing sites that met both Stage 0 and Stage 1 thresholds will proceed to Stage 2 for further investigation about installing a pedestrian crossing. Stage 2 – Environmental Factors Proximity to local trip attractors form the basis of the Stage 2 assessment, as the risk setting will be higher in and around places such as schools, hospitals, medical centres etc., where there is likely to be a higher proportion of vulnerable road users. Two additional environmental factors will be assessed for pedestrian crossing sites during Stage 2. These factors will take account of vulnerable users and road widths. The following scoring methodology will be applied on a site-by-site basis Criteria Description Score Local Trip Attractors (within 200m of traffic survey locations) School / Nursery School Entrance 15 Significant route to school (other than above) 10 Hospital, Doctors, Nursing Home, Home for Elderly 10 Park / Playpark Entrance (not associated with school) 5 Shops 5 Bus Stops within 400m of count location 5 Health Centre 3 Community; Sports Centre 3 Footway on both sides (no = gets a score) 3 Additional Factors for Pedestrian Crossings Only Vulnerable Users Children, elderly or mobility impaired >15% of total pedestrians 5 Road Width Less than 7.3 metres Between 7.3 and 10 metres Over 10 metres 0 10 15 Ranked and Prioritised Sites The score obtained in Stage 2 will be added to the scores obtained from the previous stage(s) to determine whether the following overall threshold values have been met for each site. Pedestrian Crossing Sites Stage 0 Threshold 80 Stage 1 Threshold 160 Stage 2 Threshold 220 Traffic Calming Sites Stage 1 Threshold 80 Stage 2 Threshold 130
Page 8
Appendix 2 Assessment Methodology Flow Chart