School Crossing Points Policy - FULL REPORT
Renfrewshire Council · 19 March 2025
Back to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board — 19 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 19 March 2025 Report by: Director of Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Heading: School Crossing Points Policy 1. Summary 1.1 Over the last 12 – 18 months Environment, Housing and Infrastructure has reviewed and updated a number of policies, recognising that national, regional policy and legislative contexts have changed over time and particularly on occasions where policies have been in place for a number of years without significant review. 1.2 With the upcoming introduction of 20mph speed limits proposed to be introduced across much of Renfrewshire and indeed Scotland’s residential road network it is an opportune time to recognise the need to update the Council’s policy on the criteria and implementation of school crossing points across Renfrewshire. 1.3 The current policy for crossing points was introduced in 1996 and further reinforced in 2004 by a review carried out under the then Scrutiny Board. It should be noted that national guidance has not changed much over the last 21 years, therefore this is a review and refresh of the policy to ensure it aligns, rather than any fundamental or substantive change with regards to the assessment of crossing points. 1.4 Work has been undertaken by Environment, Housing and Infrastructure over many years to invest and enhance in safe walking routes within the communities, including the introduction of light crossings e.g. zebra/pelican etc. Officers will continue to review routes and invest where required, in the coming years.
Page 2
1.5 The Council provides a School Crossing Patrol facility to aid children going to and returning home from school. Not all schools have a school crossing patrol facility as criteria must be met before a school gets a patrol. 1.6 In circumstances where a School Crossing Patrol is provided, it is important to remember that parents remain responsible for their child's safety. The Council are not responsible for the safety of children for their whole journey to and from school where a School Crossing Patrol is provided. The responsibility for ensuring the safety of children travelling to and from school is a parental one. 1.7 The Service is jointly delivered by Officers in the Roads Service and Facilities Management Service. Roads Officers will assess locations as a result of requests for a crossing point, with Officers in Roads/Facilities Management deciding whether the location merits a crossing point based on the policy and local circumstances with Facilities Management then arranging and facilitating this. 1.8 Officers from the Roads Service and Facilities Management have reviewed the arrangements for delivery of the Council’s provision of school crossing points and deployment of school crossing patrollers and have outlined the proposed arrangements at Appendix 1 of this report. 1.9 Renfrewshire already has part time 20mph speed limits outside its schools at the start and end of the school day. It is well accepted that 20mph speed limits reduce the number and severity of accidents, especially for vulnerable road users. 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1. Agrees that the refreshed policy for assessment of locations for school crossing facilities. 3. Background and Assessment Criteria 3.1. School crossing points are essentially a road crossing facility, one of a number of different traffic management options available, including zebra and pelican crossings and are considered in much the same way as available crossing options at roads near schools. 3.2. Over the last number of years the Council has allocated its own funds supplemented by external funding from SPT to increase the number of controlled crossing points around schools throughout Renfrewshire.
Page 3
3.3. The criteria for the assessment of potential school crossing points comes from national guidance provided by Road Safety GB in conjunction with RoSPA with the main elements being criteria widely used for assessing potential sites for new zebra or pelican crossing points. 3.4. The criteria widely known as the PV2 uses the number of pedestrians (P) and number of vehicles(V). PV2 provides a measure of the potential conflict and delays experienced by pedestrians but also accounts for situations where small numbers of pedestrians cross roads where there are larger traffic volumes. 3.5. The criteria also incorporates factors to reflect the special conditions at sites during school opening and closing times when the numbers of child pedestrians were concentrated over a fairly short period of time. Environmental differences between sites and the varying levels of traffic awareness between children in rural areas and those in large urban areas also needed to be considered. 3.6. The full process is set out below and comprises six stages of assessment: 1. Count of pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Calculation of PV2 Rating. 3. Comparison with adopted criteria threshold level. 4. Consideration of ‘Adjustment Factors’ and selection of ‘Multipliers’ (where appropriate). 5. Recalculation and recheck against the adopted criteria threshold level. 6. Consideration of additional facilities (e.g. zebra and light-controlled crossings). 3.7 The same process will also be adopted when reviewing whether a school crossing point should be removed should the local environment have changed since the crossing point was established e.g. local traffic management schemes have been introduced. This policy provides a framework for officers to make the decision to remove a crossing point should it no longer meet the criteria 4. Current Position in Renfrewshire 4.1 In line with the policy approved in Renfrewshire in 1996, where an assessment score is below 1.33million the Service will not introduce or continue a site in line with the policy. 4.2 Where an assessment provides a score between 1.33 million and 4 million then the policy allows for further detailed site examination to be conducted and adjustment factors applied. The adjustment factors take into account site- specific factors such as vehicle speeds, carriageway width, footpath width, visibility, accident records and the age of children crossing the roads. The school crossing point is only justified if there is an adjustment to the PV2 calculation that reassesses the score to greater than 4 million.
Page 4
4.3 In line with the policy a school crossing point is justified without any further investigation if the results of the formula PV2 value are greater than or equal to 4 million. 4.4 In previous years, school crossing patrollers were sometimes placed at controlled/signalised crossings e.g. zebra/pelican crossings. As part of this policy update, it should be noted that where there is a signalised crossing in place and the PV2 is lower than 11million, a school crossing patroller will not be placed at that location. Implications of this Report 1. Financial – None 2. HR and Organisational Development – None 3. Community Planning Our Renfrewshire is thriving / Reshaping our place, our economy and our future – Low speed residential environments improve living conditions for Renfrewshire’s residents. 4. Legal – None 5. Property/Assets – None 6. Information Technology – None 7. Equality & Human Rights - The recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. 8. Health and Safety – Low speed residential environments reduce accident numbers and severity. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – Low speed residential environments reduce vehicle emissions and support the Council’s climate ambitions. 13. Children’s Rights - This report demonstrates compliance with Article 6 (life, survival and development) and Article 24 (health, water, food, environment) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Page 5
14. COSLA Policy Position – None List of Background Papers - none Author Gordon McNeil, Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure e-mail: gordon.mcneil@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 6
1 School Crossing Points Policy Environment, Housing & Infrastructure
Page 7
Roads Enforcement Policy 2 Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 3 1.1. Legal & Policy Background .................................................................... 3 2. Aim of this Policy ................................................................................ 3 3. Establishment of a School Crossing Point ......................................... 4 3.1. Pedestrian and Vehicle Count ............................................................... 4 3.2. Calculation of PV2 Score ....................................................................... 5 3.3. Comparison with Adopted Criteria Threshold Level .......................... 5-8 3.4. Consideration of ‘Adjustment Factors and selection of Mulltiplier. . 8-10 3.5. Recalculating the Rating against Adopted Criteria Threshold Level ... 11 3.6. Consideration of Additional Facilities ................................................. 11 4. Application and Review of this Policy .............................................. 12
Page 8
Roads Enforcement Policy 3 1. Introduction 1.1. Legal & Policy Background Over the last 12 – 18 months Environment, Housing and Infrastructure has reviewed and updated a number of policies, recognising that national, regional policy and legislative contexts have changed over time and particularly on occasions where policies have been in place for a number of years without significant review. The current policy for crossing points was introduced in 1996 and further reinforced in 2004 by a review carried out under the then Scrutiny Board. The Council provides a School Crossing Patrol facility to provide assistance to children going to and returning home from school safely, there is no legal requirement for the Council to provide a School Crossing Patrol facility. The Council are not responsible for the safety of children for their whole journey to and from school where a School Crossing Patrol is provided. The responsibility for ensuring the safety of children travelling to and from school is a parental one. . Not all schools have a school crossing patrol facility as criteria must be met before a school gets a patrol. 2. Aim of this Policy This policy sets out the Council’s approach to managing its School Crossing Points service and provides a framework to ensure decisions around School Crossing Points are made in a transparent and evidence based manner. It ensures that they are provided on the basis of an impartially assessed need. The priorities of the Policy at all times will be to; • To ensure our road network is a safe space for all; • To protect our assets on the public road; • To prevent unnecessary hindrance or obstruction to road users; • To change offender behaviour;
Page 9
Roads Enforcement Policy 4 3. Establishment of a School Crossing Point The criteria for the establishment of a school crossing patrol site uses a formula known as the ‘PV2’. The PV2 is the formula for measuring whether or not a SCP site is justified where: • P = pedestrians • V = vehicles The Council calculates this score in accordance with the nationally recognesed guidance for assessment and consists of 6 parts; 1. Pedestrian and Vehicle Count. 2. Calculation of PV2 Rating. 3. Comparison of PV2 with criteria threshold level of 4 x 106. 4. Consideration of ‘Adjustment Factors’ and selection of ‘Multipliers’ (where appropriate). 5. Re-calculation and re-check against the adopted criteria threshold level. 6. Consideration of additional facilities (e.g. zebra and light-controlled crossings - where heavy traffic flows/speeding exist) In many cases it is unnecessary to proceed beyond step 3, as this will often provide a clear indication about whether or not an SCP Site can be justified. 3.1 Pedestrian and Vehicle Count A count is taken at the Site to identify the busiest 30-minute period, recording child pedestrians (P) and vehicles (V). Sites identified as having less than 15 children crossing the road in the busiest 30 minute period should not be considered for the establishment or continuation of a School Crossing Patrol.
Page 10
Roads Enforcement Policy 5 The traffic counts record vehicles as ‘passenger car’ equivalent values (PCU’s), by using the following multiplication factors: • 3 Pedal Cycles = 1 PCU • 2 Motorcycles = 1 PCU • 1 Car = 1 PCU • 1 Light Goods Vehicle = 1 PCU (up to 3.5 tonnes gross weight) • 1 Bus/Coach = 2 PCUs • 1 Medium Goods Vehicle = 2 PCUs (over 3.5 tonnes gross weight) • 1 Large Goods Vehicle = 3 PCUs (over 7.5 tonnes gross weight/multi axle lorries) • 1 Bendi-bus = 3 PCUs The count will include child pedestrians ,aged 5-11 (P) who attend an educational establishment and who cross the road at, or in the case of unstaffed or proposed new sites within 50 metres of, the Site, at the time of the heaviest traffic flow. 3.2 Calculation of PV2 Score All values used in the calculation are taken from the same 30- minute busiest period. Having collected all the necessary data from the site, the calculation PV2 must be completed following the process below; • Identify the busiest consecutive 30-minute period (note that vehicles form the most significant part of the equation). • Calculate the total of child pedestrians (P) and multiply it with the square of the total number of PCU equivalents (V2) from the same consecutive 30-minute period to provide the product PV2. 3.3 Comparison with Adopted Criteria Threshold Level The initial method of assessing whether or not the proposed Site is justified is achieved simply by using Figure 1 below. The values of P and V are entered on the appropriate axes and projected to produce a co- ordinate on the graph.
Page 11
SCP Guidelines Revised November 2013 38
Page 12
Roads Enforcement Policy 7 Worked Examples Worked examples have been provided below to give an overview of the impact of scoring on whether a crossing patrol would be provided or not. If a PV2 of greater than 4 million is achieved, an SCP location can be justified. Figure 1 on the previous page shows whether a site immediately justifies a SCP or if it needs further investigation or measures other than a SCP. Example (i): 200 children (P) and 250 vehicle equivalents (V) in the same consecutive 30- minute period, multiplied together in the form PV2 produces point ‘X’ on the graph. The point is within area ‘A’, exceeding the required threshold value of 4 x 106 and justifying the establishment of an SCP site. There is no need for further site assessment, or mathematical calculations. Site can be justified. Example (ii): 300 children (P) and 100 vehicle equivalents (V) in the same consecutive 30- minute period, multiplied together in the form PV2 produces point ‘Y’ on the graph. This is within area ‘B’ [between lines (1) and (2)], not achieving the threshold level and not justifying the establishment of an SCP site at this stage. Reference should be made to Part 4 of the criteria in order to re-assess whether the site can be justified. Site NOT immediately justified – further investigation needed using Adjustment factors. Example (iii): 150 children (P) and 75 vehicle equivalents (V) in the same consecutive 30- minute period, multiplied together in the form PV2 produces point ‘Z’ on the graph. This is within area ‘C’ [below and to the left of line (2)], not reaching the threshold level and almost certainly not justifying the establishment of an SCP site. Site NOT justified. Should extreme pressure be applied for the provision of an SCP at this site, Part 4 of the criteria may be applied to verify the position.
Page 13
Roads Enforcement Policy 8 Where a PV2 score of less than 1.33m is recorded, a school crossing patrol site is not justified. The position on the graph indicates whether or not the Site is justified at this stage or whether further investigation is required. Position of Point Action to be taken Area ‘P’ Crossing facilities justified (It is recommended a light controlled crossing be considered, in extreme cases an SCP may be necessary also) Area ‘A’ SCP site justified (Recommended establishment of SCP site) Area ‘B’ SCP site not justified at initial assessment (Apply Part 4 of the procedure to verify the position) Area ‘C’ SCP site definitely not justified at initial assessment 3.4 Consideration of ‘Adjustment Factors and selection of Mulltiplier Where the PV2 criterion threshold level falls within area ‘B’ on Figure 1, a detailed Site investigation is undertaken using the list of ‘Adjustment Factors’. These quantify the environmental considerations used in assessing the potential risks at the proposed Site. Each item is assessed objectively and appropriate factors assigned. Once the final total of adjustment factors has been decided (Table 1), the appropriate multiplier is obtained from the table of compound multipliers (Table 2).
Page 14
Roads Enforcement Policy 9 Table 1 – Adjustment factors Factor Adjustment Carriageway width between 7.5 and 10 metres 1 Carriageway width in excess of 10 metres 2 Footpath width less than 2 metres 1 Down gradient steeper than 12.5% (1 in 8) 2 Down gradient less than 12.5% but greater than 5% (1 in 20) 1 Patrol performs 2 crossings 1 85th percentile speed of traffic - Travelling between 30mph and 40mph, visibility less that 50 metres - Travelling between 30mph and 40mph visibility between 75 and 100 metres - Travelling between 40mph and 50mph visibility less than 60 metres - Travelling between 40 and 50mph visibility between 60 and 100 metres - Travelling between 40mph and 50mph visibikity between 100 and 150 metres 3 2 1 3 2 1 No street lighting 3 Signs, street furniture, trees etc obstruct visibility within 100metres of proposed site and pedestrians are masked 1 Road markings that are for purposes other than a school crossing patrol within 50 metres of the site 1 Site is within 20 metres of a road junction with; - A minor road - A major road 1 2
Page 15
Roads Enforcement Policy 10 Accident history (based on 3 year average in locations within 50 metres of the proposed crossing location) 1 – per pedestrian injured per year Traffic calming facilities - Traffic calming - Traffic calming plus 20mph zone 1 2 Average age - Primary (up to 11 years) - Secondary (12+) +5 +11 Table 2 – Multipliers to be added Number of factors identified Multipliers to be applied to the basic PV2 value 1 1.1 2 1.21 3 1.331 4 1.464 5 1.61 6 1.772 7 1.949 8 2.144 9 2.358 10 2.594 11 2.853 12 3.139 13 3.453 14 3.798
Page 16
Roads Enforcement Policy 11 3.5 Recalculating the Rating against the Adopted Criteria Threshold Level ‘Multiplier’ indicated in the table of Compound Multipliers’ is multiplied by the previous threshold rating (PV2). The result of this calculation is the ‘New’ PV2 value. Where a New PV2 score of less than 4,000,000 is recorded, a school crossing patrol site is not justified. Usually, unless the Site attracts an abnormally large number of Adjustment Factors, it is unlikely that an SCP Site could be justified. 3.6 Consideration of Additional Facilities Where significant flows of vehicles and/or children are identified at the potential site, the Council will consider the installation of appropriate formal crossing facilities, such as a light controlled crossing or zebra. These will be considered in line with the Council’s Road Safety Policy and standards for the installation of these crossing facilities.
Page 17
Roads Enforcement Policy 12 4. Application and Review of this Policy Signal controlled crossings are usually, by definition, safe places to cross the road. Such crossings and School Crossing Patrols both stop traffic so pedestrians may cross the road. Accordingly, having both in the same place is a duplication of resources. The Council will, as a rule, not have School Crossing Patrollers on signal-controlled crossings, except where exceptional safety circumstances have been experienced and documented. In such exceptional circumstances where patrollers are provided, they will receive special training and be expected to carry out their duties in accordance with the guidance. The policy will be reviewed on a 2 yearly basis or in line with any significant legislative or national, regional or local policy changes which impact on service provision
Page 18
13 Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Renfrewshire Council Renfrewshire House Cotton Street Paisley PA1 1BR