Hull's Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (Lcwip)

HULL’S LOCAL CYCLING AND WALKING INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (LCWIP)

JANUARY 2020 - 2030

1 Introduction

1.1.1 Hull’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) is intended as a strategy which identifies key routes and corridors where walking and cycling infrastructure improvements should be prioritised in order to make walking and cycling the natural choice for shorter journeys or as part of longer journeys. This LCWIP not only aims to improve infrastructure for existing pedestrians and cyclists, but also aims to induce a modal shift from car-based modes to more sustainable modes of transport, supporting the ambitions of the Local Transport Plan and tackling air pollution in the city.

1.1.2 This LCWIP has been produced in line with the Department for Transport’s (DfT) ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy’ and follows the guidance contained within the DfT’s ‘LCWIP Technical Guidance for Local Authorities’. The LCWIP Technical Guidance recommends a six-step process in producing an LCWIP document, as reproduced below: Figure 1: LCWIP Process

Gathering Information Determining Scope Identify existing patterns of walking and cycling and potential new Establish the geographical extent of journeys. Review existing conditions the LCWIP, and arrangements for and identify barriers to cycling and governing and preparing the plan. walking. Review related transport and land use policies and programmes.

Network Planning for Network Planning for Cycling Walking Identify origin and destination points and cycle flows. Convert flows into a Identify key trip generators, core network of routes and determine the walking zones and routes, audit type of improvements required. existing provision and determine the type of improvements required.

Prioritising Improvements Integration and Application Prioritise improvements to develop a Integrate outputs into local planning phased programme for future and transport policies, strategies, and investment. delivery plans.

1.2 Determining Scope

1.2.1 The LCWIP Technical Guidance recognises that an LCWIP may cover a small or large geographical area, and that it can be adapted to suit the size and characteristics of the local area. Because the city of Hull covers a relatively compact area, this LCWIP covers all areas within the city boundary and identifies improvements as appropriate. It also considers link to the areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire which lie outside of the city boundary.

1.2.2 Hull City Council is responsible for the development and delivery of this LCWIP, but liaison with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) and Highways England (HE) is important in ensuring that any improvements appropriately tie in with any improvements proposed within the areas for which these authorities are responsible.

1.2.3 The LCWIP covers both cycling and walking improvements but focuses on cycling, because as outlined within the LCWIP Technical Guidance, “measures that improve conditions for one user group will often benefit the other”. For example, improvements to off-road cycling facilities and the provision of new crossings points will also provide improvements for pedestrians in these areas.

1.2.4 It is recognised that there are substantial differences between walking and cycling in terms of users, barriers to use, travel distances, and in the networks and infrastructure requirements for the two different groups. Walking routes and facilities in Hull have developed over a long period and there is already a comprehensive footway and footpath network in place to accommodate most walking trips. The role of pedestrian network planning for utility trips (i.e. not walking for recreation/leisure) is generally not to provide new walking routes, but to improve the existing network, in order to encourage people to walk more rather than use a car for short trips. This LCWIP will therefore aim to improve facilities for pedestrians as part of all proposed infrastructure improvements. Where any new facilities are targeted predominantly at cyclists, the design of any infrastructure will ensure that conditions for walking are not negatively impacted, as a minimum.

1.2.5 This LCWIP not only aims to improve infrastructure to cater for existing users, but also intends to encourage new cyclists and induce a modal shift from car-based modes.

2 Cycling and Walking in Hull – Gathering Information

2.1 Existing Cycling and Walking Networks

2.1.1 Hull has an established network of existing walking and cycling routes. The relatively compact city boundary means that the majority of the city is made up of urban areas with short travel distances, and as such the sustainable transport infrastructure is generally well developed, with a network of footways, crossing points and cycling infrastructure. The flat topography of the city is also conducive to encouraging walking and cycling and this is evidenced by the proportion of walking and cycling trips as part of a journey to work being above the national average.

2.1.2 Hull has an existing network of more than 1,500km of footways and 37km of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) across the city. The council has invested in the public realm in the city centre over recent years with the aim of creating a ‘pedestrian first’ environment, which has improved the walkability of the city centre for both residents and visitors. Investment in the public realm outside of the city centre has been limited however, with the majority of key pedestrian routes being alongside busy roads which do not represent a pleasant walking environment. The council has invested in the resurfacing of existing footways and the refurbishment of pedestrian crossings, but the introduction of new pedestrian links or facilities has been limited. There is a network of footpaths which are away from busy roads, such as routes through parks and along routes such the Foredyke Route and Withernsea Trail, however some these routes are in poor condition, not lit and are not well overlooked, contributing to an environment that is not conducive to encouraging walking trips.

2.1.3 The existing cycling network includes approximately 65km of off-road cycle routes and approximately 70km of on-road cycle lanes which cover most areas of the city. There are advanced stop lines at the majority of signalised junctions across the city and there are also a number of signalised crossings for cyclists. The public realm works in the city centre have helped to facilitate cycling across the city centre, providing cycle connections to amenities and places of employment. There is cycling provision on the majority of key routes which feed the city centre (including Anlaby Road, Beverley Road and Holderness Road), however the provision is generally on-road and shared with traffic, is of variable quality and is disjointed in parts, making it unattractive to some cyclists. Whilst there is a fairly dense network of off-road routes, the physical condition of some of the infrastructure is poor, with no wayfinding and gaps in provision, particularly at junctions. From a review of the existing infrastructure, the consensus is that the city has an established network of cycle routes, but that the majority of routes require significant improvements to make them more conducive to cycling.

2.1.4 The city council produced local travel maps in 2014 to assist residents and visitors in finding new ways of travelling. The maps cover the entire city and identify the locations of bus stops, cycle routes and infrastructure, and the locations of pedestrian infrastructure including footpaths and crossings. The Hull cycle map, last published in 2014, is currently being updated to include the latest infrastructure across the city.

2.1.5 A National Census is undertaken every 10 years in England and Wales, with the most recent censuses undertaken in 2001 and 2011, and the next planned for 2021. The Census collects various household information, including data relating to transport and notably how people travel to and from work. A summary of the proportion of Hull residents travelling to and from work by each mode from the 2001 and 2011 Census is provided within Table 1: Table 1: Method of Travel to Work in Hull (2001 vs 2011)

2001 2011 Mode Mode Mode Change Share Share Work mainly at or from home 5.4% 1.9% -3.5% Train 0.6% 0.6% - Bus, minibus or coach 12.8% 13.1% +0.3% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 1.5% 1.2% -0.3% Driving a car or van 47.5% 53.2% +5.6% Passenger in a car or van 8.1% 7.9% -0.2% Taxi or minicab 1.2% 1.0% -0.2% Bicycle 11.7% 8.2% -3.5% On foot 10.4% 12.0% +1.6% Other 0.6% 0.8% +0.2%

2.1.6 Table 1 demonstrates that the proportion of Hull residents travelling to work by cycle declined by 3.5% between 2001 and 2011, which corresponded with a 5.6% increase in those travelling to work by driving a car or van. Despite this decline, Hull still has one of the highest cycle modal splits of any local authority area in the UK at 8.2% of all journeys to work, which compares to a national average cycle mode share of 3%. Encouragingly, it should be noted that the travel to work on foot mode share increased by 1.6% between 2001 and 2011 and walking now represents the third most common mode for journeys to and from work in Hull.

2.2 Hull Local Plan 2016-2032

2.2.1 The current Hull Local Plan (2016 to 2032) was adopted in November 2017 and is used to guide new development in the city over the next 15 years. Chapter 10 of the Local Plan covers Transport and includes a number of policies to ensure that any required transport improvements are delivered as part of new developments, including improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

2.2.2 The Local Plan references the Council’s desire to develop new cycle tracks and footpaths in the city to encourage a modal shift away from private motor vehicle use to more active and sustainable modes of transport and identifies that “more safe and convenient routes are needed, where possible segregated from other traffic”. Policy 36 explicitly references walking, cycling and powered two-wheelers and aims to ensure that new developments provide a positive contribution towards the development of the walking and cycling network, including assurances that existing infrastructure will be safeguarded. Policy 25 also covers sustainable travel and aims to ensure that new developments include provision for, and give priority to, walking and cycling.

2.2.3 The Local Plan includes a city-wide policies map, which identifies sites that are allocated for new development (residential and commercial) and those which are protected as green space. The Local Plan indicates a housing supply of 11,702 new dwellings from allocated sites over the plan period from 2016 to 2032. The citywide allocations are summarised within Table 5.1 of the Local Plan, which demonstrates that approximately 25% of allocated housing is within the Kingswood area to the north of the city, with a further 25% in the city centre. Relatively high proportions of housing allocations are along the Holderness Road corridor and within the Newington and St Andrew’s area, with the remaining allocations spread across other sites within east and west Hull.

2.2.4 This LCWIP document sits in the context of the adopted Hull Local Plan and associated Kingswood Area Action Plan (AAP) and seeks to deliver a walking and cycling network that is suitable to serve both existing travel demand, and demand generated by proposed future developments. It is important to ensure that wider infrastructure is in place to encourage the uptake of sustainable modes from the initial occupation of new developments; however developments should also be required to positively contribute to the local pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, particularly if they are located within the vicinity of the identified core and secondary cycle routes. This is discussed further within Section 2.8.

2.3 Hull Local Transport Plan

2.3.1 The current Hull Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was published in 2011 and covers the period 2011 to 2026. The LTP3 provides the transport vision for the development of the city and includes the policies and strategies required to deliver this vision, including a forward programme which identifies specific schemes.

2.3.2 Chapter 6 of LTP3 covers walking, and includes information on the existing walking network and the accessibility to various amenities on foot. The LTP sets out a number of challenges the Council is seeking to overcome to encourage walking in the city, which includes:

• Improving pedestrian facilities at busy intersection to remove barriers and improve safety;

• Rationalising street clutter to improve the pedestrian environment, including for disabled users;

• Increasing and extending connectivity between open spaces, green corridors and the highway network in order to improve permeability.

2.3.3 Chapter 7 of LTP3 covers cycling and provides information on the existing cycling network, along with details of recent developments and improvements to the cycling infrastructure that have been implemented. The LTP identifies a number of challenges to increasing cycling in the city, which includes:

• Increasing awareness of existing cycle facilities through marketing campaigns and the distribution of cycle maps;

• Maintaining the highway network to a standard that reduces problems to cyclists;

• Further improving the connectivity of the existing cycle network by removing barriers.

2.3.4 This LCWIP sits in the overall context of LTP3 and will assist in achieving the overall aims of improving rights of way and improving the cycle network. It will also seek to overcome the identified challenges by proposing a range of improvements on key walking and cycling routes.

2.3.5 The Hull Local Transport Plan is currently being updated and a new Hull Transport Strategy Delivery Plan will be published in 2020. This LCWIP has been produced in conjunction with the new Transport Strategy Delivery Plan to ensure that the documents share a similar set of objectives relative to walking and cycling, building upon those within the LTP3.

2.4 Hull’s Cycling Strategy 2003

2.4.1 A cycling strategy for Hull was published by the city council in 2003 and set out the aspirations for cycling over the seven years up to 2010. The strategy identified 5 key objectives:

• Increase cycle use;

• Reduce road casualties involving cyclists;

• Reduce cycle theft;

• Encourage life-long cycling; and

• Improve health by more cycling.

2.4.2 The strategy identified a number of measures and initiatives to achieve these objectives, and responsibilities and resources were allocated accordingly to allow the initiatives to be delivered. The key objectives of the previous strategy are shared by this LCWIP, however specific schemes and an implementation programme has been identified in order to ensure the delivery of the identified improvements and stimulate progress towards the objectives.

2.5 Hull Cycling Action Plan 2015-2017

2.5.1 The Hull Cycling Action Plan 2015-2017 includes a number of objectives and actions which are aimed at increasing participation in cycling at entry level for both sport and recreation. The Action Plan also includes resources allocated to each action, along with a performance indicator to monitor delivery. The majority of measures contained within the action plan are informational rather than focused on hard infrastructure, and have been delivered over recent years. This LCWIP aims to build upon the measures delivered as part of the Action Plan by delivering improvements to the physical cycling infrastructure in the city.

2.6 Other Local Policies

2.6.1 This LCWIP also sits in the context of, and aims to meet the objectives of a number of other local policy documents, including:

• Hull City Council 2017 Air Quality Strategy;

• Hull Culture and Leisure (HC&L) Towards an Active Hull 2018-2028;

• 2030 Hull Carbon Neutral Strategy (currently being developed). 2.7 Transport Funding Schemes

2.7.1 The Humber Local Enterprise Partnership and City Council is investing in an upgrade to the Stoneferry Road corridor which runs north to south, to the east of the city, which will include improvements to the existing walking and cycling infrastructure. The scheme will include 5.6km of new and refurbished cycle paths, 10 new controlled pedestrian/cycle crossings, 2 upgraded crossings and 10,500m 2 of footway resurfacing. Smart technology will also be integrated into the scheme to increase driver awareness of cyclists.

2.7.2 A £355 million upgrade of the A63 Castle Street is proposed to be undertaken by Highways England, with construction expected to begin in March 2020 and be completed in Spring 2025. The scheme includes a number of improvements to the pedestrian and cycling environment, including a shared-use foot/cycleway on the northern side of the A63, and improved footway provision on the southern side. Connectivity is expected to be improved through new controlled pedestrian and cycle crossings at the A63/Ferensway/Commercial Road junction, and improvements to the pedestrian and crossing facilities at the A63/Market Place/Queen Street junction, likely involving the re-routing of these movements beneath the carriageway and away from traffic. The Princes Quay Footbridge is also currently under construction and will improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity across the A63 between the Marina area and the rest of the city centre.

2.7.3 The adopted Kingswood Area Action Plan (AAP) identifies a package of highway works which are to be delivered as part of the Kingswood development, including at Kingswood roundabout, Roebank roundabout and the Ennerdale/Thomas Clarkson Way roundabout. The highway works should also include improvements to the pedestrian and cycle infrastructure at the roundabouts, in line with the recommendations of this LCWIP.

2.7.4 The investment in these existing schemes is to be maximised in order to improve the pedestrian and cycle facilities as far as possible as part of any ongoing works.

2.8 Development Opportunities

2.8.1 As discussed in Section 2.2, the Hull Local Plan indicates a housing supply of 11,702 new dwellings from allocated sites over the plan period from 2016 to 2032. The Local Plan also includes employment allocations, primarily in the city centre, along the A63/A1033 corridor to both the east and west of the city, and within the Stoneferry area to the north-east of the city centre.

2.8.2 The locations of these new developments have been factored in to the development of this LCWIP, to ensure that the proposed infrastructure improvements are suitable to serve the existing and proposed future demand. However, these new developments will also play a role in the future of the walking and cycling network, and any proposals should be required to make a positive contribution towards the walking and cycling network as per Policy 36 of the Local Plan.

2.8.3 An example of this is the provision of dedicated off-road cycling infrastructure as part of large new developments, such as that being delivered within the expanding Kingswood estate to the north of the city, as identified within the Kingswood AAP. Any new pedestrian and cycling infrastructure should also be required to connect seamlessly with the existing and proposed walking and cycling infrastructure to ensure route continuity and that walking and cycling are convenient modes of travel. Covered and secure cycle parking should also be provided as part of new developments to ensure that convenient cycle parking is available, to reduce the potential for cycle theft.

2.9 Wider Transport Information Policy

2.9.1 The government produced its first ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy’ in 2017, with a stated ambition to make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey. This strategy encourages local authorities and bodies to produce Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) in order to identify the required cycling and walking improvements at a local level to meet this ambition, and the DfT released an ‘LCWIP Technical Guide for Local Authorities’ alongside the investment strategy which has been used as a basis for the development of this LCWIP.

2.9.2 The LCWIP Technical Guide draws together national good practice, including the Welsh Active Travel Design Guide and TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards, both of which have been referred to as part of the LCWIP process in order to ensure the proposed infrastructure improvements are of high quality and follow current best practice.

2.10 Demographics

2.10.1 Demographic information for Hull is available from the Kingston upon Hull Data Observatory. As of mid-2018, the city has an estimated population of 260,645 which is skewed towards younger people, with a median age of 35.6 years compared to the national average median age of 39.9 years. 65.2% of the population of the city is aged between 16-64 years, compared to 62.6% nationally. The compact nature of the city means that it has a high population density of 36.5 people per hectare, compared to 4.3 nationally.

2.10.2 Car ownership in Hull is below the national and regional average, with 0.80 cars per household, compared a figure of 1.10 in Yorkshire and the Humber, and 1.16 nationally. A total of 40.6% of households in Hull do not have a car or van, compared to a national average of 25.8%.

2.10.3 Residents of Hull have good access to day-to-day services such as employment, education and healthcare. When considering travel on foot or by public transport only, 97.4% of residents live within 15 minutes of a primary school, 91.3% live within 15 minutes of an employment centre, 85.2% live within 15 minutes of a GP, and 24.6% live within 15 minutes of the town centre.

2.10.4 These statistics demonstrate that the propensity for walking and cycling trips in Hull is high, with a relatively young population, high population density, low car ownership and close access to local amenities.

3 Evidence Base

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section outlines the second stage of the LCWIP process, as shown by the below infographic:

3.2 Cycling and Traffic Flows

3.2.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) count point (CP) database has been interrogated In order to determine the existing cycling and traffic flows on key routes within Hull. There are a number of DfT CPs across the city for which data is available from 2018, with the flows at all locations either having been counted in 2018 or estimated based on previous counts, with appropriate local traffic growth factors applied. The data is presented as Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) which represents the total number of two-way users recorded on each link over the course of an average day (including weekends), however it should be recognised that daily flows on an average weekday may be higher.

3.2.2 A full breakdown of the flows on each link by vehicle type is provided as Appendix 1, with the recorded cycle and motor vehicle flows where the number of daily cyclists exceeds 200 summarised within Table 1. A plan showing the locations of all count points and the recorded two-way cycle flows is also included as Appendix 1. Table 2: AADF Cycle and Motor Vehicle Flows

Motor Link Cycles Vehicles Holderness Road (Mount Pleasant to Ings Road) 1,160 14,539 Holderness Road (Witham to Mount Pleasant) 946 14,904 Freetown Way (Beverley Road to Witham) 809 22,568 Anlaby Road (Boothferry Road to Rawling Way) 785 17,790 Beverley Road (Cottingham Road to Freetown Way) 735 16,592 Beverley Road (Sutton Road to Cottingham Road) 701 17,820 Hessle Road (North Road to Witty Street) 632 21,266 Clough Road (Beverley Road to Stoneferry Road) 623 19,866 Anlaby Road (Rawling Way to Ferensway) 534 13,084

Motor Link Cycles Vehicles Raich Carter Way (Dunswell Roundabout to John 511 20,897 Newton Way) Witham (Great Union Street to Clarence Street) 452 11,799 Sutton Road (Ennerdale to Holwell Road) 449 18,826 Bricknell Avenue (Cottingham Road to Chanterlands 441 10,704 Avenue) Boothferry Road (First Lane to Pickering Road) 376 13,838 West Carr Lane (Stockholm Road to Stoneferry 360 12,742 Road) Anlaby Road (Calvert Lane to Boothferry Road) 355 10,625 Hotham Road North (Bricknell Avenue to 345 3,056 Cottingham Road) Clarence Street (Great Union Street to Holderness 343 6,587 Road) Ferensway (Freetown Way to Anlaby Road) 340 18,059 Hedon Road (Mount Pleasant to Southcoates Lane) 312 10,897 Endike Lane (Greenwood Avenue to Beverley Road) 306 5,167 Boothferry Road (Pickering Road to Anlaby Road) 291 10,410 Stoneferry Road (Chamberlain Road to Mount 284 24,667 Pleasant) Holderness Road (Ings Road to Saltshouse Road) 284 16,857 A63 (Rawling Way to Ferensway) 275 50,478 Mount Pleasant (Stoneferry Road to Holderness 211 14,004 Road) Holderness Road (Saltshouse Road to Main Street 208 25,040 Bilton)

3.2.3 Whilst the DfT CPs are biased to include major roads rather than minor roads and do not consider dedicated off-road routes such as the Foredyke or Holderness Drain routes, Table 1 demonstrates that existing cycle flows in Hull are generally highest on primary routes that feed the city centre, including Holderness Road, Anlaby Road and Beverley Road. These are also routes where motor vehicle flows are high, and where cyclists and motor vehicle traffic tend to mix due to the absence of off-road cycling facilities.

3.3 Cycling and Walking to School

3.3.1 Although now relatively dated, the most recent national school mode of travel surveys were undertaken as part of the 2011 School Census (DfE, 2011), with schools no longer being required to collect this data as part of subsequent censuses. The data shows the number and proportion of pupils that travel to each school in Hull by each mode of transport. Whilst primary schools are included within the dataset, and a number of primary school children do cycle to school, there is a higher propensity to cycle amongst secondary school pupils. Table 2 therefore summarises the walking and cycle modal split at secondary schools within Hull as per the 2011 School Census. It should be noted that a number of new schools were built in Hull in 2011/12 as part of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, which resulted in the closure of some schools and the opening of some new schools. Only secondary schools which were open at the time of 2011 School Census and are still open have therefore been included within Table 2, with the location of all secondary schools shown on the plan included as Appendix 2. Table 3: Secondary School Walking and Cycle Modal Splits

Cycle Walking No. No. School Modal Modal Cyclists Walkers Split Split The Marvell College 60 5.4% 642 58.1% Archbishop Sentamu Academy 65 17.9% 249 68.6% Hull Trinity House School 11 3.8% 17 5.9% Kingswood Academy 29 3.6% 679 85.2% Kelvin Hall School 27 2.8% 807 83.0% Malet Lambert School 61 4.2% 1,300 88.7% Newland School for Girls 50 5.9% 298 35.1% Sirius Academy West 35 3.5% 423 42.8% St Mary’s College 62 3.9% 387 24.2% Winifred Holtby School 27 1.9% 1,152 82.3%

3.3.2 Table 2 demonstrates that the cycle modal split across secondary schools in Hull is generally between 3% and 6%, and whilst there is some variation from school to school, the proportion of cyclists is generally low. The admissions arrangements for each school vary and whilst some weighting is given to the proximity of a pupil’s address to the school, traditional school catchment areas are now less applicable than in previous years and pupils may live greater distances from the school they attend, which may impact on their propensity to cycle.

3.3.3 The walking modal split is generally quite high and is above 80% at four of the schools. The schools at which the walking modal split is low are those with a broad catchment, such as Hull Trinity House School and Newland School for Girls.

3.4 Major Trip Attractors

3.4.1 Hull has a number of large employers which are spread across the city. The largest employers have been identified through information available from Hull City Council and a report on the top 250 companies in Yorkshire (BDO, 2019). These businesses are likely to employ a significant number of people and therefore generate a large number of daily trips to/from work, with a propensity to cycle amongst these trips. The locations of the major employers in the city are shown on the plan included as Appendix 2.

3.4.2 These employers are primarily within the private sector, but it should be noted that public sector organisations also typically employ a large number of staff. Large public sector employers in Hull include the NHS at Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull City Council (primarily in the city centre) and public schools around the city.

3.5 2011 Census Data

3.5.1 The 2011 National Census includes ‘Location of usual residence and place of work by method of travel to work’ data which shows the number of residents travelling to each workplace destination by mode of travel. The most detailed geography that this origin-destination data is publicly available for is ‘Middle-Layer Super Output Area’ (MSOA) level, therefore this dataset has been interrogated in order to determine the number of people travelling to each MSOA in Hull for work, both from other MSOAs in Hull and MSOAs in neighbouring areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire.

3.5.2 There are a total of 32 MSOAs in Hull and each has a resident population of between 5,000 and 15,000. The number of jobs in each MSOA varies, therefore the trip generation potential of each MSOA also varies and some MSOAs attracts more journeys to work than others. In terms of the total number of person trips as part of journeys to work, the MSOAs ‘Kingston upon Hull 001’ (Kingswood), ‘Kingston upon Hull 016’ (Sutton Fields), ‘Kingston upon Hull 020’ (Hedon Road corridor), ‘Kingston upon Hull 024’ (Bankside), ‘Kingston upon Hull 026’ (Drypool) and ‘Kingston upon Hull 029’ (city centre) attract/generate the most trips. A large proportion of the employers discussed within Section 3.4 are located in these MSOAs. A map of the MSOAs in Hull and the surrounding areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire is included as Appendix 3.

3.5.3 As journeys to and from work represent one of the primary journey purposes, this data has been used as the primary data source to underpin the development of the cycling network plan, as discussed further within Section 4. Whilst the data was interrogated for all travel modes, the primary focus was on MSOA to MSOA movements on foot, by bicycle (representing the existing cycling demand) and by car drivers (representing the potential future modal shift).

3.5.4 It is recognised that the DfT LCWIP Guidance (DfT, 2017) recommends that authorities make use of the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) through the LCWIP process. The PCT is largely an interactive map-based tool and uses 2011 National Census data to highlight the routes with the highest potential demand for cycling. The PCT uses the same Census dataset discussed above, and the interactive map is based upon population weighted centroids for each of the identified MSOAs. This means that when the data is mapped automatically by the PCT software, all trips to/from each identified MSOA are directed towards the centroids, which in the case of Hull are not necessarily in the locations of the main trip generators within each MSOA. An example of this is that the centroid for the MSOA ‘Kingston upon Hull 016’ is on James Reckitt Avenue, when the majority of the key trip generators in this MSOA are likely to be in Sutton Fields Industrial Estate or on Stoneferry Road. This means that when the PCT assigns cycle flows to routes, it identifies the roads around James Reckitt Avenue as having a high propensity to cycle when in practice, cycle flows are unlikely to be as high as projected by the PCT. This LCWIP therefore employs a more tailored approach, based upon analysis of the 2011 Census data and a bespoke assignment method, informed by local knowledge and cycling around the areas concerned. The methodology employed by this LCWIP is discussed further within Section 4.

3.5.5 It is acknowledged that the 2011 Census data is now 9 years old and that Hull’s landscape has changed somewhat since the last Census was undertaken. The next Census is due to be undertaken in 2021, with data release expected in 2022/2023 and therefore the 2011 Census data remains the most recent dataset on which to base detailed analysis on. This LCWIP does account for any new developments completed since 2011 however, and as referenced in Section 2.2 also accounts for sites allocated for development within the Hull Local Plan, in order to ensure that both existing and potential future demand is considered.

3.6 People’s Panel Surveys

3.6.1 The Hull People’s Panel includes over 2,800 local residents who regularly take part in surveys covering various topics that help to shape policy and services within the city. The most recent survey to cover transport matters was the ‘Energy City’ survey which was distributed in March 2016.

3.6.2 The survey included multiple questions about transport in general, along with specific questions regarding cycling. A copy of the full survey results and analysis is included as Appendix 4, however a number of key points have been identified through analysis of the surveys and are outlined below:

• 9.0% of survey respondents said they travel to work by bike, which is comparable to the 8.3% cycle modal split derived from the 2011 Census Data. There is an imbalance in the mode share of these trips by gender, with 13.2% of male travel to work trips being made by bike, compared to 4.5% of female travel to work trips;

• A lower proportion of respondents said they undertake shopping trips (3.3%) and leisure trips (5.9%) by bike, although 32.6% of shopping trips are made by pedestrians;

• A total of 60.7% of respondents said that cycling should be prioritised in the city, and 55.8% said that pedestrians should be prioritised. A total of 70.9% of respondents aged 16 to 34 years said that cycling should be prioritised;

• 40.7% of respondents said that they own a bike, with a further 40.7% saying they used to own a bike and 18.6% saying they have never owned a bike. This suggests a relatively high propensity to cycle, with a relatively significant proportion of residents currently owning a bike;

• A total of 13.2% of respondents said they cycle at least once per week, with a further 19.6% saying they cycle occasionally. Just over half of respondents (51.2%) said they haven’t cycled for many years. A total of 10.5% of respondents said they never cycle, although 16.3% of respondents aged 16 to 34 years said they never cycle;

• The majority of respondents (87.7%) cited health and fitness as being amongst the most important reasons to cycle, with 56.9% of respondents citing environmental reasons and 37% saying to avoid traffic congestion;

• A number of statements relating to cycling were presented, with respondents asked on a sliding scale of 1 to 5 to what extent they strongly disagree (1) or strongly agree (5). The following statements received an average agreement level of above 4, suggesting strong agreement with all statements:

o More walking/cycling should be encouraged;

o There should be more off road cycle paths;

o More cycle paths are needed.

The above suggests that the majority of respondents agree that more cycle infrastructure in Hull is required, particularly off-road cycle paths. A demographic trend amongst respondents is that there is a higher level of agreement with the above statements amongst those aged 16 to 34 years, and females. The statements which received the lowest average level of agreement were ‘I would feel unsafe on off road cycle paths’ and ‘I would use affordable bike hire’.

3.6.3 The general trends from the above analysis are that there is an appetite amongst residents for cycling to be prioritised within the city but that more cycling infrastructure is required. There is a relatively high propensity to cycle with at least 40% of residents currently owning a bike and a total of 32.8% stating that they cycle at least occasionally.

3.7 Road Casualty Data

3.7.1 Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data for Hull for the most recent available 5-year study period (01/01/2013 to 31/12/2017) was obtained via a search of the Department for Transport’s road safety data (DfT, 2018).

3.7.2 A total of 4,968 casualties resulted from the 3,927 recorded collisions in Hull between 2013 and 2017. A total of 1,107 casualties recorded over this period were cyclists, which represents 22.3% of all recorded casualties. An annual breakdown of casualties is provided within Table 3: Table 4: Hull Casualty Data 2013-2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL Total Casualties (Hull) 1,010 1,017 996 988 957 4,968 Cycle Casualties (Hull) 235 211 199 231 231 1,107 Proportion of Cycle Casualties 23.3% 20.7% 20.0% 23.4% 24.1% 22.3% (Hull) Proportion of Cycle Casualties 10.2% 10.6% 9.7% 10.2% 11.4% 10.4% (Yorkshire and Humber)* Proportion of Cycle Casualties 11.0% 11.3% 10.5% 10.5% 11.0% 10.9% (England)* *Proportions derived from dataset ‘RAS30043: Reported casualties by severity, region, local authority and road user type, England’

3.7.3 Table 3 demonstrates that whilst there has been a general trend of a reduction in the number of recorded casualties in Hull between 2013 and 2017, the number and proportion of cycle casualties decreased in 2014 and 2015, before increasing again in 2016 and 2017.

3.7.4 Across the five-year study period, a total of 22.3% of the recorded road casualties in Hull were cyclists, which represents a significantly higher proportion of casualties when compared to 10.4% within the Yorkshire and Humber region and 10.9% within England. It should be recognised however that Hull has a much higher cycle travel to work modal split of 8.2%, compared to a Yorkshire and Humber average of 2.6% and an England average of 3.0%, and therefore the proportion of cycle casualties is expected to be higher than the regional and national average. The highway environment within Hull is also largely urban in nature when compared to other regions, and is therefore likely to accommodate a higher proportion of cycle trips on its network. The proportion of cycle collisions is still considered to be relatively significant however and is representative of more than double the regional or national average.

3.7.5 Data published by the DfT within the dataset ‘RAS30045: Reported casualty rate per million population by region, local authority and road user type, England’ (DfT, 2018) demonstrates that in 2017, the Hull Local Authority (LA) area had a cyclist casualty rate of 886 per million of the population, which is the 10th highest of any LA area within England, and the highest of any LA area outside of London.

3.7.6 The evolving Road Safety Strategy for Hull identifies that the Council’s focus over the next three years will be on vulnerable road users, and this LCWIP supports this focus by prioritising improvements to the pedestrian and cycle network in the city. Any improvements identified as part of this LCWIP account for the collision records on the identified routes and aim to improve the road safety record.

4 Network Planning for Cycling and Walking

4.1 Methodology

4.1.1 This section outlines the third stage of the LCWIP process, as shown by the below infographic:

4.1.2 As discussed within Section 3.5, journeys to and from work represent one of the primary journey purposes and data from the 2011 National Census outlines the number of residents travelling to and from each Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) in Hull for work by mode of travel. Whilst it is recognised that there are a number of other journey purposes, including shopping, personal business, visiting friends, leisure and education, widespread local modal split data is not available for full analysis of these journey purposes to be undertaken. However, data from the National Travel Survey (DfT, 2019) does show that nationally, the journey purposes for which cycling is most prevalent are commuting and leisure (Table NTS0409), therefore the use of the National Census data is considered to be a suitable primary data source in the development of the cycling network plan.

4.1.3 Whilst data on MSOA to MSOA car driver trips is also important in identifying the potential for modal shift, a high-level assessment of the Census data demonstrates that the highest demand for MSOA to MSOA cycle movements generally correlates with the highest demand for MSOA to MSOA car driver movements. The use of the data for existing cycling movements is therefore considered to be representative of both the existing cycle demand and potential future modal shift.

4.1.4 The Census data was grouped so that all MSOA to MSOA cycle movements within Hull, and between the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull were captured but this resulted in a total of 2,400 potential origin-destination (O-D) pairs, some of which had a low or very low recorded number of existing cycle movements. In order to ensure that only the O-D pairs with a sizeable number of trips were considered, any O-D pairs with less than 25 existing MSOA to MSOA cycle trips were excluded from further analysis. The remaining data has been digitally mapped using MapInfo to geographically show where the key existing demand for cycling trips occurs.

4.1.5 As discussed within Section 3.5, the MSOA boundary files from the 2011 National Census are based upon weighted centroids, meaning that when the Census data is mapped, the trips are oriented towards the centroids which may not necessarily be the location of the key employment or residential areas within the MSOA. Based upon local knowledge of Hull and the identification of the local trip attractors (discussed in Section 3.4), the centroids have been adjusted within the mapping to better represent the likely origin/destination of trips within each MSOA.

4.1.6 A plan showing the O-D pairs where more than 25 cycle movements occur (50 two-way trips) is included as Appendix 5, with an extract shown within Figure 2. Figure 2: MSOA to MSOA Cycle Movements

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright & Database Rights 2020

4.1.7 The O-D pairs where the highest number of cycle movements occur are shown in orange/red, and the plan shows that as is perhaps expected, the highest numbers of cycle movements are most prevalent on movements to/from the city centre and on movements to/from key employment areas to the east of the city.

4.1.8 The O-D pairs were then overlaid on an OS base plan of Hull which also shows all of the existing and proposed cycling infrastructure within the city. Because the O-D pairs are represented as straight-line ‘as the crow flies’ movements in Figure 1, it was important to translate these flows into actual route flows to determine on which sections of routes cycling demand currently occurs, and is likely to occur in the future.

4.1.9 The routing of the cycle movements were based upon a combination of the availability of existing cycling infrastructure (e.g. cycle paths, on-road cycle lanes) and the most direct travel routes, as these factors are the most likely to influence the route a cyclist would take. The internal layout of each MSOA was also considered when assigning cyclists to routes, for example if there were a number of residential/employment areas in the MSOA, then the assignment of trips to each sub-area was based upon the relative size of the residential/employment area when compared to the whole MSOA.

4.1.10 Because each route varies in length, and would accommodate a different number of cyclists on each part of route depending on the location of the MSOA it serves, all of the identified routes were split into labelled sub-sections. A total of 192 separate route sections have been identified and these sections are shown on the plan included as Appendix 6, with an extract shown in Figure 3: Figure 3: Cycle Route Sections

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyright & Database Rights 2020 19

4.1.11 The total number of cyclists using each identified section of route has been calculated and the full analysis is included as Appendix 7. Each route section has a varied number of cyclists, but the average number of daily cycle movements on any identified section is 142. A graph showing the number of cyclists on each section of route is included as Figure 4 and is also provided in full as Appendix 7. Figure 4: Number of Cycle on each Route Section

100.00% 900 90.00% 800 80.00% 700 70.00% 600 60.00% 500 50.00% 400 40.00% 300 30.00% Total Number of Cycles

200 20.00%

100 10.00%

0 0.00% PIC2 VIC4 EXT2 TPT4 HES4 HES9 SUT4 SUT8 BEV5 AVE3 HLD4 HLD8 COT3 COT7 CHB1 RAD4 HRN1 GOD4 TCW3 MNT1 PRES1 HALL1 BLTG1 HES11 STAV2 SUT11 SUT15 LEAD1 SCOT4 CNTY1 CNTY5 SPRG3 SPRG7 ANLB1 ANLB4 BEV2A HOW2 HOW6 APNS1 FODK4 FODK7 BANK2 CRAN3 CHAN2 Hull Rd Hull BRKW2 QUAD1 HWTN3 HWTN7 Castle Rd Castle Newgate St Newgate National Ave National Sections

Total # Cycles Average

4.1.12 To ensure the robustness of the process, the number of cyclists using each route section has been cross-referenced against the cycle and traffic count data discussed in Section 3.2 to ensure that the Census data correlates with actual link flows.

4.2 The Prioritisation Process

4.2.1 Working in descending order by number of cycles per section, each route section has been categorised as to the proportion of cyclists it accommodates, relative to the overall maximum number of cyclists on any given route. Any section that accommodates above the average number of 142 cyclists has been included within the identified ‘Core Network’ of cycle routes, as they represent the routes where cycle flows are the highest and are likely to be highest in the future. The plan attached as Appendix 8 shows all of the Core Network route sections; graded depending on how many cycle trips they are expected to accommodate.

4.2.2 It should be noted that because the routes are split into sections, some sections of each route would not have made it on to the identified ‘Core Network’ due to having projected flows below the average; however any ‘missing’ sections along each route have still been included in order to ensure a coherent network of core routes. Any suitable extensions to some routes that have a slightly below average number of cyclists have also been included in the ‘Core Network’ in order to provide complete routes. Similarly, any short route sections that accommodate a higher than average number of cyclists but do not connect with other Core Network routes have been classified as ‘Secondary’ routes for consistency with creating a route network.

4.2.3 There are also instances where two direct available routes exist, for example an off-road cycle track that runs on a slightly different alignment to a primary road, where cyclists may have the choice of two routes. The Core Network has therefore been reclassified to also include these alternative off-road routes that may accommodate a number of cyclists instead of the primary road.

4.2.4 A total of 21 Core Network Routes have therefore been identified as follows:

1) Beverley Road;

2) Cottingham Road/Clough Road;

3) The Avenues;

4) Anlaby Road;

5) Thornton;

6) Hessle Road;

7) Brunswick;

8) Freetown Way;

9) Stoneferry;

10) Sutton Fields;

11) Holwell Road;

12) Foredyke Route;

13) Leads/Ings;

14) Chamberlain Road;

15) Hornsea Route;

16) Mount Pleasant;

17) Holderness Road;

18) Marfleet;

19) Preston Road;

20) Exeter Grove; and

21) Hedon Road.

4.2.5 Again working in descending order by number of cycles per section, the ‘Secondary’ network has been defined in three levels:

• Major Secondary – Route sections adjacent to and/or connecting the ‘Core Network’, including main routes to areas not previously included in the network;

• Minor Secondary – Route sections further afield from the core network, typically heading out to the city boundary and connecting the Major Secondary routes;

• Tertiary – Routes that connect key trip generators and therefore should be included within the cycle network, but have not been identified as a high use route as part of the Census analysis.

4.2.6 A table which shows the prioritisation of each of the identified route sections is included as Appendix 9, with a plan showing all of the identified Core, Secondary and Tertiary routes included as Appendix 10.

4.2.7 The identified prioritised routes also take into consideration the locations of schools and key employers, ensuring that the majority of schools/employers are directly accessible from one of either the core, secondary or tertiary routes.

5 Prioritising Improvements

5.1 The Proposed Priority Improvements

5.1.1 The DfT LCWIP guidance suggests the following approach to prioritising improvements, considering short, medium and long term improvements:

5.1.2 The guidance recommends that short term improvements should typically be implemented within 3 years, medium term improvements within 5 years and long term improvements in a 5-10 year period.

5.1.3 The network planning process has identified a total of 21 Core Network routes and detailed site audits were undertaken by cycle on all core routes in order to identify both Quick Wins (short term) and medium/long term recommendations for improving the quality of the routes for both cyclists and pedestrians. Medium and long term improvements to the Secondary and Tertiary networks have also been identified via a desk-based assessment.

5.1.4 The proposed improvements meet current best practice, as identified within documents such as the Welsh Active Travel Design Guide and TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards, and aim to deliver infrastructure of the highest standard.

5.1.5 The Quick Wins are intended as short-term improvements that are likely to be achievable over the next three-year period and aim to address the key deficiencies in the existing core route network in order to increase levels of cycling and provide a better level of service for existing cyclists. The extent and speed of delivery clearly depends on funding availability.Typical ‘Quick Win’ treatments include:

• Surfacing repairs;

• Cutting back overgrown vegetation;

• Improved lighting;

• Provision of wayfinding and branding;

• Removal of outdated or confusing signing;

• Widening existing cycling infrastructure;

• New or upgraded parallel cycle zebra crossings;

• Provision of flush kerbs and appropriate tactile paving;

• Cycle priority at side roads;

• Cycle friendly traffic calming measures;

• Removal of barriers and bollards;

• Introduction of cycle warning symbols (diagram 1057 markings); and

• Refreshed road markings.

5.1.6 The medium/long term schemes are more aspirational and represent desirable improvements that would contribute to the development of a first-class network of cycling infrastructure and it is likely that specific funding will be required to implement these schemes over an approximately 10-year timeframe, again depending upon the level of funding available. Typical medium and long-term treatments include the above ‘Quick Win’ improvements, plus:

• New fully segregated off-road cycle tracks, uni-directional (both sides) or two- way (one side);

• Provision of kerb segregation between pedestrians and cyclists;

• New or upgraded signalised (Toucan) crossings;

• Provision of low-level cycle signals with ‘early starts’ for cyclists;

• Provision of light segregation;

• Road space re-allocation to provide improved cycle infrastructure.

Low-level cycle signal Two-way segregated off-road cycle track

Light segregation Parallel cycle zebra crossing

5.1.7 Both the Quick Win and medium/long term improvements will look to provide off- road ‘segregated’ cycling infrastructure wherever possible, however it should be recognised that this will not always be possible on the narrow city road network and given land constraints.

5.2 Short Term Improvements

5.2.1 A separate Quick Win Improvements report has been produced alongside this LCWIP and identifies details of both the potential Quick Wins and possible long- term improvements that are recommended on each section of the 21 Core Network routes in order to improve the existing cycling infrastructure, as informed by the detailed site audits. The Quick Win Improvements report is included as Appendix 11.

5.2.2 In order to prioritise the implementation of the Quick Wins, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the improvements have been considered using a scoring matrix which considers the following factors:

• Convenience;

• Accessibility;

• Safety;

• Comfort;

• Attractiveness;

• Type of facility;

• Potential for induce modal shift;

• Impact on other road users; and

• Risk to delivery.

5.2.3 Improvements are ranked by the benefits they will deliver to cyclists.. Details of the scoring system and a completed scoring matrix for each of the identified Quick Wins is included as Appendix 12 and is summarised within Table 5. The improvements have been ranked in descending order by overall score, with the highest score indicating the greatest benefit to cyclists. Table 5: Quick Wins Scoring and Prioritisation

Ref Location Proposal Score

12.6 Foredyke Route Improve links to neighbouring residential 23 areas. Carry out maintenance tasks, remove obstructions

12.2 Foredyke Route Widen and resurface existing segregated 23 & cycle track/footway. Improve signing and 12.3 carry out maintenance

2.8 Clough Road - Bankside Provide off-road cycle facility across 21 to A1033 roundabout bridge. Tie-in to existing facilities with parallel cycle/ pedestrian crossing

3.5 Pearson Park (crossing Resurface and upgrade to segregated 19 park) cycle track/ footway

12.4 Foredyke Route (road Install speed tables and flush kerbs at 18 crossings only) road crossings. Provide cycle priority at crossings (where possible)

10.15 Ennerdale – Thomas Provide new parallel cycle zebra crossing 17 Clarkson Way roundabout with widening of central island on east arm of junction. Including associated links to existing cycle facilities

- Foredyke Route - full Improve signing and conspicuity of cycle 14 length facilities

10.11 Thomas Clarkson Way Review detection and timings to make 14 (just south of Roebank toucan crossing more demand Roundabout) responsive for cyclists and pedestrians

3.9 Leonard Street, Grosvenor Improve signing and conspicuity of cycle 14 Street and Wellington facilities. Amend humps to sinusoidal Lane

17.2 Holderness Road Resurface carriageway and widen 14 existing cycle lanes

17.9 Holderness Road - around Resurface carriageway or repair surface 14 Summergangs Road defects

13.2 Sutton Road / Cavendish Provide continuous cycle facility with long 14 Road / Ings Road / sections of segregated or shared use Maybury Road / Marfleet cycle track / footway. Remove excess Lane / Marfleet Avenue signing

2.1 Clough Road Widen existing cycle lanes 12

9.1 & (New) Cleveland Street / Widen existing cycle lanes 12 9.2 Great Union Street

Ref Location Proposal Score

17.7 Holderness Road - around Provide continuous cycle facility across 12 Durham Street junctions and accesses

18.1 Marfleet Lane - Hedon Remark existing cycle facilities with 12 Road to Marfleet Avenue additional cycle symbols. Provide waymarking signage and cycle priority at junctions and access

2.10, Cottingham Road Widen and remark existing cycle facilities 10 2.11 & 2.14

12.5 Foredyke Route Remove obstructions and reinstate 9 footway

17.1 Clarence Street / Alfred Carry out maintenance works to road 9 Gelder Street surface. Widen cycle lanes and remark to 1.8m. Improve cycle detection at signalised junctions

1.4 - Beverley Road Widen and extend existing cycle lanes 9 1.6

1.7 Beverley Road Provide continuous facilities between 9 existing bus and/or cycle lanes

3.1 Victoria Avenue - Off road Remove existing pedestrian barriers 9 section at western end

10.13 Thomas Clarkson Way - Remove obstructions and reinstate 9 link immediately south of footway The Croft

9.6 Low Level Cycle Route Remove obstructions and reinstate 8 footway. Carry out maintenance tasks

10.12 Thomas Clarkson Way Convert from segregated to shared 8 (Roebank Roundabout to facility. Carry out maintenance tasks Ennerdale Leisure Centre).

10.14 Thomas Clarkson Way Convert from segregated to shared 8 facility. Carry out maintenance tasks

10.17 Ennerdale / Thomas Convert from segregated to shared 8 Clarkson Way roundabout facility. Carry out maintenance tasks to Sutton Road

11.3 Holwell Road Carry out maintenance tasks (clear 7 vegetation encroachment, repair surface)

21.3 Hedon Road Carry out maintenance tasks (clear 7 vegetation encroachment)

12.7 Dansom Lane Resurface carriageway and mark cycle 6 facilities

Ref Location Proposal Score

1.1 Beverley Road Carry out maintenance tasks, including 6 fixing ponding

1.2 Beverley Road Add new cycle lanes to close gaps and 6 make continuous.

2.3 & Clough Road Carry out maintenance tasks, including 6 2.9 fixing ponding

2.4 Clough Road Realign zigzags to create cycle lane 6 between them and kerb

2.5 Clough Road Provide continuous cycle facility across 6 junctions and accesses

2.6 Clough Road Extend existing cycle lane to central ASL 6 approach lane

2.7 Clough Road (Bankside Extend existing cycle lane to roundabout 6 Roundabout)

2.12 Cottingham Road Carry out maintenance tasks, including 6 fixing ponding

2.13 Cottingham Road Provide continuous cycle facility across 6 junctions and accesses

3.2 Victoria Avenue Replace existing road humps with 6 sinusoidal humps

3.3 Victoria Avenue - Off road Carry out maintenance tasks and widen 6 section at eastern end cycle slips

3.4 Princes Avenue crossing Upgrade existing zebra crossing to a 6 parallel crossing

5.4 Osborne Street - Add advance stop lines and approach 6 Ferensway junction cycle lanes

8.2 Freetown Way Realign zigzags to create cycle lane 6 between them and kerb

10.1 Stockholm Road Carry out maintenance tasks (repair 6 gullies)

17.5 Holderness Road Widen and remark existing facilities. 6 Provide continuous cycle facility across junctions and accesses

17.11 Holderness Road Prohibit parking in bus lane 5

12.1 Sutton Road (Ennerdale to Carry out maintenance tasks and remark 5 Foredyke Route) cycle facilities

11.5 Holwell Road / Sutton Add parallel crossings for pedestrians 5 Road roundabout and cyclists to northern arm of roundabout, across Holwell Road legs

17.6 Holderness Road - around Remark cycle facilities with additional 5 Barnsley Street cycle symbols

Ref Location Proposal Score

19.4 Preston Road (separated Remark cycle facilities with hatched 5 carriageway section) buffer to parking bays

19.3 Southcoates Lane / Resurface junctions and central islands. 5 Southcoates Avenue / Increase length and width of cycle slips Preston Road junction

10.13 Thomas Clarkson Way – Remove obstruction from existing 4 link to Ennerdale segregated cycle track/footpath. Carry immediately south of The out maintenance tasks Croft

3.6 Pearson Park - Park Road Add flush speed table across Pearson 4 junction Park

5.2 & Great Thornton Street Provide wayfinding signage 4 5.3

15.1 Trans Pennine Trail Provide wayfinding signage and mark 4 additional cycle symbols

20.1 Exeter Grove - Preston Provide wayfinding signage 4 Road junction

20.2 Exeter Grove / Bilsdale Provide wayfinding signage 4 Grove

10.18 Crossing south of Carry out maintenance tasks. Remove 3 Ennerdale / Thomas excess signage Clarkson Way roundabout

10.19 Between roundabouts for Carry out maintenance tasks 3 Ennerdale / Thomas Clarkson Way and Ennerdale / Sutton Road

3.8 Low Level cycle route (Off Carry out maintenance tasks 3 road cycle track from Park Road to Beverley Road)

11.1 Holwell Road (north of Remove excess signage 3 Sutton Road)

16.1 Mount Pleasant Carry out maintenance tasks. Remove 3 excess signage

20.5 Cycle track - Bilsdale Carry out maintenance tasks. Remove 3 Grove to Hedon Road excess signage

17.4 Holderness Road - east of Remove existing parking bays and 2 Mount Pleasant junction continue existing NWAAT

1.3 Beverley Road Add additional cycle symbols 1

2.2 Clough Road Remark existing cycle facilities and add 1 diag. 1057 markings

3.7 Park Road - Cave Street / Amend junction priorities so cycle route 1 Park Grove junction has priority. Add wayfinding signage

Ref Location Proposal Score

5.2.4 The rankings should be used as a guide as to where the Quick Win improvements should be prioritised, however the merits of implementing improvements on a route by route basis should be recognised and preferred to implementing piecemeal improvements on multiple different routes to ensure betterroute continuity. Delivery is subject to funding availability.

5.2.5 The sections of a wider route between Kingswood (Retail Park/residential area) and the City Centre scored highly within the prioritisation matrix and has therefore been identified as being the priority route for the implementation of Quick Wins. This wider route is made up of a number of route sections (including parts of routes 9, 10, 12) but follows the Foredyke Route as a quieter and more attractive alternative to the Stoneferry corridor, fully segregated from motor traffic.

5.2.6 The Quick Win Improvements report included as Appendix 11 therefore emphasises the improvements on the Kingswood to City Centre route, but still includes consideration of the required improvements on the remainder of the Core Network routes.

5.2.7 The prioritisation of the remaining Quick Win improvements should take account of the scoring of each of the corresponding route sections in order to implement improvements on a route by route basis.

5.3 Medium and Long-Term Improvements

5.3.1 Medium (within 5 years) and long term (5-10 years) improvements have been identified for each of the 21 Core Network routes and are intended as a ‘step-up’ from the Quick Wins in order to deliver a comprehensive, high quality primary cycle network. It is expected that these improvements will be delivered over a 3-10 year timeframe and each scheme is likely to require specific funding to secure its implementation. The medium and long-term improvements have been identified via an extensive site audit process and are summarised for each route in Table 6:

Table 6: Core Network Medium and Long-Term Improvements

Route Number and Suggested Treatment Name 1. Beverley Road Suggested two-stage approach:

Stage 1 would be for improvements to existing cycle lanes, join up, widening, providing light segregation where feasible, minor signal improvements (low level signals and early starts etc.). This would be similar (but slightly enhanced) to the Quick Wins identified for this route in the separate document.

Stage 2 (long-term) major scheme to reallocate road space and provide segregated cycle facility either uni-directional (both sides) or two way (one side). A major transport study including bus lane journey times in both directions would be required to identify opportunities and constraints. Although the flows for the core route criteria only show from Cottingham Rd southwards, the route would need to include from Dunswell Roundabout, to attract longer distance commuters. 2. Cottingham/ Cottingham Road between Hall Road and Ferens Avenue – Implement two- Clough way off-road cycle track in footway / verge on south side behind trees. Footway and road space reallocation to provide segregated cycle route on south side, tying in to crossings.

Cottingham Road between Ferens Avenue and Beverley Road – Remove of advisory cycle lanes to provide additional width. Junction treatment at Newland Avenue junction.

Clough Road – Remove existing advisory cycle lanes and install two-way segregated cycle track along for full length of route. South side suggested in order to provide continuity with Cottingham Road proposals. Reduce width of footways to 2m and remove existing on-road advisory cycle lanes and central hatching where required in order to accommodate. Provide raised tables with cycle priority across side roads and accesses. Remove left turn deceleration lanes into retail sites. Schemes required at Beverley Road/Cottingham Road and Bankside junctions to tie facilities into the wider cycle network. 3. The Avenues Chanterlands Ave, St Ninian’s Walk, Victoria Ave, Princes Ave crossing, Pearson Park, Park Rd, Leonard Street, Grosvenor Street and Wellington Lane. Potential quick win scheme for comprehensive route improvements or include in longer term scheme to also provide new cycle-friendly traffic calming features and signalled facility on Beverley Road south of Leonard Street to facilitate north-south cycle movements, with new off-road link to Strand Close quiet street route. 4. Anlaby Road Ferensway to Rawling Way – Potential for segregated cycle facilities. Wide footways / verge areas available in some areas. Some sections would require extensive road space reallocation (towards eastern end). Potential to provide facility on south side between Rawling Way and Walker Street. then utilise existing quiet street route via St Luke’s St to city centre. 5. Thornton Resurface carriageway, replace road humps with cycle-friendly design, and improve wayfinding. 6. Hessle Road Hawthorn Avenue to city boundary – Add light segregation along cycle lanes, full length.

Route Number and Suggested Treatment Name 7. Brunswick Partly existing route running north-south between Freetown Way in south and Clough Road in north. Southern section (Bridlington Ave, Charles St and off- road cycle track to Brunswick Ave) requires widening, improved continuity and crossings, upgraded traffic calming features and resurfacing. Northern section, Bridlington Ave to Clough Road requires new sections of track, potential land acquisition and Environment Agency approval. 8. Freetown Way Reduce width of central reservation to increase width of cycle lanes and add light segregation between cycle lane and traffic lane.

Add low level cycle signals with early starts for cycles to existing signalised junctions.

North Bridge – Amend cycle facilities. Either improve off-road facilities and transitions to on-road, or reallocate road space and provide fully segregated cycle facilities to tie-in to similar facilities along Freetown Way. 9. Stoneferry Dependant on proposed Stoneferry Road Corridor treatments for cycling/walking. Either way we will need to ensure the proposed core and secondary networks tie into these.

Mount Pleasant to Railway Bridge – Provide ramps across side road accesses to remove level differences. Provide cycle priority and improved signing / marking to ensure continuity of route. Improve cycle track surface.

Railway Bridge to Chamberlain Road Roundabout – Provide two-way fully segregated cycle track on east side to connect up to existing off road facilities south of railway bridge. High quality facility would enable existing on-road advisory cycle lanes to be removed.

Mount Pleasant Roundabout – Provide cycle priority crossings at roundabout. 10. Sutton Fields Provide two-way fully segregated cycle route on eastern side of Stockholm Road with associated priority crossings at all minor junctions and private accesses. Removal of advisory cycle lanes will provide required width – eastern kerb line will require modification along full length.

Create new cycle track in highway land on north/western side of Copenhagen Road to provide missing link in network. Add parallel zebra crossings for cycles / pedestrians to access West Carr Lane and underpass leading to Rotterdam Road.

Underpass and link between Copenhagen Road and Rotterdam Road – Carry out maintenance works. Improve lighting and public realm and wayfinding works.

Rotterdam Road (Link between Copenhagen Road and Foredyke Cycle Route), Quiet street route available via Rotterdam Road and Hamburg Road but requires improvement. Requires remedial surfacing works and signing / wayfinding.

Route Number and Suggested Treatment Name 11. Holwell Road North of Sutton Road – Upgrade existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings to parallel cycle zebra crossings. Provide raised tables where appropriate. Provide route branding and wayfinding information on full route. Resurface section between Sutton Road and Barnstaple Road roundabout and repair surface defects in other areas. Amend tactile paving along full route (hazard tactiles have been used instead of corduroy). 12. Foredyke Route Proposed Quick Win scheme to widen and resurface existing footway to provide maximum width shared-use foot/cycleway. Trim back overgrown and encroaching vegetation. Add wayfinding information along full route. Remove barriers / bollards along route, and reinstate footway.

Install speed tables with flush kerb transitions at road crossings and provide cycle priority at crossings where possible. Improve access to neighbouring residential areas, resurface / trim vegetation / remove barriers & bollards as necessary.

Connection between Hamburg Road (on road advisory route) and Foredyke cycle route – Construct short new section of cycle track. 13. Leads/Ings Leads Road (between Foredyke Cycle Route and Sutton Road) – Provide off- road cycle track to both sides of carriageway in wide verges to provide missing link in network.

Sutton Road, Cavendish Road, Ings Road – Upgrade full route to improve priority across junctions and crossings, improve surface and provide missing links. Implement junction schemes to provide continuity between sections Holderness Road, Gillshill Road and Leads Road junctions). 14. Chamberlain Add segregated cycle track to existing wide footway behind tree line. Links Road into Hornsea and Foredyke route signalled crossings. Link into Stoneferry Corridor scheme at Chamberlain Road Roundabout. 15. Hornsea Route Resurface existing path with minor widening. Trim back overgrown and encroaching vegetation. Remove barriers / bollards along route. Improve access to neighbouring residential areas. 16. Mount Pleasant No continuous cycle facility provided along route just isolated sections at some signalised junctions. There are sections of off-road segregated cycle track on the eastern side between Cleveland Street / Stoneferry Road roundabout and James Reckitt Avenue roundabout, also between Ellis Street and Mount Pleasant South Roundabout.

Option 1 – Upgrade existing off-road routes from Mount Pleasant (junction with Ellis Street), along Ellis Street, Craven Street North, upgrade existing signalled crossing of Holderness Road, then route via Burleigh Street/Courtney Street/Dansom Lane North as above. Add priority at side roads, raised tables etc.

Option 2 – Provide new section of off-road cycle track (two-way) on eastern side of Mount Pleasant between Ellis Street and Holderness Road. Requires signalled cycle crossing of Ellis Street and (assumed non-highway) land to enable widening. Provide new cycle crossing of Holderness Road to enable cyclists to access Courtney Street route which runs parallel with Mount Pleasant. Improve Courtney Street/Dansom Lane North/James Reckitt Ave route to link up to existing off-road cycle routes off James Reckitt Ave.

Route Number and Suggested Treatment Name 17. Holderness Road Provide fully segregated cycle facilities along full length of Holderness Road, Witham to Ganstead Lane. Would require road space reallocation and study to identify constraints and opportunities, including impacts on buses. Major scheme including junctions. 18. Marfleet Maybury Road, Marfleet Lane, Marfleet Avenue route. Upgrade full route to improve priority across junctions and crossings, improve surface and provide missing links. Implement junction schemes to provide continuity between sections (Preston Road and Holderness Road junctions). 19. Preston Road/ Southcoates Lane – Provide segregated cycle facilities between Newcomen Southcoates Lane Street and Holderness Road (current missing link). Scheme required at Route Holderness Road/Southcoates Lane junction. Remove excess / unnecessary bollards and tactiles. Provide raised tables and cycle route priority across side roads and accesses. Widen and resurface existing off-road cycle track where feasible, and declutter. Remove cycle give-ways at side roads.

Preston Road, dual carriageway section (full length) – Provide light segregation for cycle lanes along full route. ‘Float’ parking bays on the outside of the light segregated cycle lanes. This will require the buildouts at side roads removing. Bus stop bypass / floating bus stop treatments with cycle track mini zebra crossings required. Junction scheme required at Marfleet Lane signals to provide route continuity. Low level signals with early starts.

Preston Road from Ecclesfield Avenue junction eastwards – Continue on- road cycle facility by providing cycle-friendly traffic calming features. 20. Exeter Grove Existing off-road route, Hedon Road to Portobello Street – Provide missing links, widen/improve existing lengths. Add wayfinding information. Rearrange / relocate / remove pedestrian barriers to provide better access to Exeter Grove. Add / relocate drop kerb at back of footway to improve accessibility. Edge out path on southern section (Hedon Road to Bilsdale Grove). 21. Hedon Road Mount Pleasant to city boundary – Provide continuity across side roads and junctions for cycle track, widen, resurface, de-clutter and remove barriers and obstructions, provide improved wayfinding.

5.3.2 The proposed medium/long term schemes on each link of the Core Network have been assessed against the same prioritisation framework as the Quick Wins, as outlined within Section 4.4. Improvements are ranked by the benefits they will deliver to cyclists, rather than cost. A completed scoring matrix for each of the identified medium/long term schemes is included as Appendix 13 and is summarised within Table 7.

Table 7: Medium and Long Term Improvements Scoring and Prioritisation

Ref Location Proposal Score

1.1 Ferensway (Anlaby Road Provide either uni or bi-directional fully 27 to Margaret Moxon Way) segregated cycle facilities

1.2 Ferensway (Margaret Provide segregated cycle track by 27 Moxon Way to Freetown widening into central reserve and / or Way) footway

1.3 - Beverley Road Provide either uni or bi-directional fully 27 1.7 (Ferensway to Dunswell segregated cycle facilities. Stage Roundabout) 2

2.1 - Clough Road Replace existing advisory cycle lanes 27 2.6 with 2-way fully segregated cycle track along (suggested) southern side. Provide raised tables with cycle priority across side roads and accesses

2.7 & Clough Road (Bankside As per proposal ref: 2.1 - 2.6 , with tie-in 27 2.9 Roundabout) to fully segregated facility along rest of route

2.10 Cottingham Road – Hall Replace existing advisory cycle lanes 27 Road roundabout to with 2-way off-road cycle track within Ferens Avenue junction existing footway / verge on southern side (behind trees)

2.11 - Cottingham Road Reallocate road space to provide 27 2.14 (Ferens Avenue - segregated route Beverley Road)

17.2 - Holderness Road Provide fully segregated off-road cycle 27 17.5 (Dansom Lane to facility along full length of Holderness Ganstead Roundabout) Road. Provide continuous facility across junctions and accesses

17.6 & Holderness Road – As per proposal ref: 17.2 - 17.5 . Provide 27 17.7 around Barnsley Street fully segregated off-road cycle route within existing wide footway

9.8 Stoneferry Road - railway Replace existing advisory cycle lanes 26 bridge to Chamberlain with 2-way segregated cycle track on Road roundabout Eastern side to connect to existing facilities south of railway bridge.

3.3 Victoria Avenue – Off Extend off-road cycle track within existing 25 road section at eastern verge to Queens Road end

8.8 Witham Provide off-road segregated cycle facility 24 within existing (approximately 4m) wide footway

Ref Location Proposal Score

14.1 Chamberlain Road Provide new segregated cycle track/ 22 footway within existing wide footway, behind trees. Stoneferry Road improvement scheme may have implications at Western end

4.1 Anlaby Road Provide segregated cycle facilities on 21 southern side within existing footways / verge between Rawling Way and Walker Street. Provide quiet street route via St Luke's Street to City Centre.

13.1 Leads Road (between Provide off-road cycle track on both sides 20 Foredyke Cycle Route of carriageway in existing wide verges and Sutton Road)

17.8 - Holderness Road – prior Provide off-road segregated cycle track 20 17.11 to Southcoates Lane along existing (approximately 4m) wide junction footway, behind signal poles. Relocate controller to back of footway

10.10 Roebank Roundabout Provide new parallel cycle and 17 pedestrian zebra crossing with dropped kerbs and associated links to existing cycle facilities. May be possible to include within Kingswood AAP scheme proposal.

10.16 Thomas Clarkson Way – Provide new parallel cycle and 17 Ennerdale roundabout pedestrian zebra crossing with dropped kerbs and associated links to existing cycle facilities. Widen central island on North Eastern arm of roundabout

5.2 & Great Thornton Street Resurface carriageway and replace 16 5.3 existing road humps with sinusoidal humps. Add wayfinding signage

10.3 Copenhagen Road (link) Provide new off-road cycle track within 16 existing wide verge

10.4 West Carr Lane Provide off-road segregated cycle track 16 on northern side to tie-in with proposed scheme at Holwell Road roundabout

3.9 Leonard Street, Replace existing round topped road 15 Grosvenor Street and humps with sinusoidal humps. Amend Wellington Lane Pelican crossing to allow southbound cycle access to Beverley Road. Amend signalled facility on Beverley Road to allow north-south cycle movements, with off-road link to quiet street route

Ref Location Proposal Score

8.5 Freetown Way - North Provide fully segregated cycle facilities to 15 Option Bridge tie-in with similar facilities along Freetown 2 Way

9.4 Foster Street Provide 2-way cycle track through 15 widening footway on northern side

10.11 Thomas Clarkson Way Convert signals to provide two stage 15 (just south of Roebank crossing for pedestrians and single stage Roundabout) (straight across) crossing for cyclists. May be possible to include within Kingswood AAP scheme proposal.

12.1 Sutton Road (Ennerdale Widen and resurface existing segregated 15 to Foredyke Route) cycle track/ footway, separate with kerb segregation. Provide cycle priority crossing across Aldi entrance and exit (consider inclusion in West Carr Lane maintenance scheme). Widen and resurface links into Nidderdale and Dorchester Road.

8.7 Witham Widen entrance to arm and provide cycle 14 lane between junction and start of bus lane

9.6 Low Level Cycle Route Improve landscaping, provide route 14 branding and wayfinding information, check lighting

10.2 Stockholm Road Replace existing advisory cycle lanes 14 with 2-way fully segregated cycle facility on Eastern side. Realign Eastern kerbline along full length

10.12 Thomas Clarkson Way Widen to circa 4m and resurface existing 14 & cycle facility, potential to provide kerb 10.14 segregation between cyclists and pedestrians. Remove incorrect hazard tactile paving.

10.17 Ennerdale / Thomas Widen and resurface existing path, 14 & Clarkson Way providing kerb segregation between 10.18 roundabout cyclists and pedestrians. Kingswood AAP mitigation scheme may have implications on this.

Ref Location Proposal Score

11.1 Holwell Road (North of Upgrade existing uncontrolled crossings 14 Sutton Road) to parallel cycle and pedestrian zebra crossings, using raised tables where appropriate. Provide branding and wayfinding along full route. Resurface existing cycle facility between Sutton Road and Holwell Road roundabout, and repair surface defects and correct tactile paving along full route

9.1 & (New) Cleveland Street / Relocate existing cycle lane adjacent to 13 9.2 Great Union Street kerbline, parking bays to be floated on offside. Light segregation to separate cycle lane from parking bays.

2.8 Clough Road – Bankside Potential tie-in to facilities provided 12 to A1033 roundabout through Stoneferry Road improvement scheme (TBC).

15.3 Trans Pennine Trail / Resurface footway - full length 12 Hornsea Cycle Route

16.1 Mount Pleasant Provide new off-road cycle track on 12 Option Eastern side between Ellis Street and 2 Holderness Road. Upgrade existing signals to allow cycle crossing at Ellis Road and Holderness Road junctions respectively. Redirect route via Courtney Street, Dansom Lane North and link with existing off-road cycle facilities off James Reckitt Avenue.

19.4 Preston Road (separated Relocate existing cycle lane adjacent to 12 carriageway section) kerbline, parking bays to be floated on offside. Light segregation to separate cycle lane from parking bays and bus stops, floating bus stop treatment with mini zebra crossings required. Remove existing buildouts. Provide low level signals and early starts at signalised junctions.

3.1 Victoria Avenue – Off Provide cycle - friendly traffic calming 11 road section at western features and signalised facility on end Beverley Road (south of Leonard Street). Provide new off-road link to quiet street route

7.1 Brunswick Provide new continuous cycle facility. 11 Resurface and widen existing cycle facility along full route. Provide cycle - friendly road crossings and traffic calming measures.

Ref Location Proposal Score

13.2 Sutton Road / Cavendish Provide cycle facilities at all junctions 11 Road / Ings Road / (e.g. low level signals, advance stop lines Maybury Road / Marfleet when appropriate). Upgrade existing Lane / Marfleet Avenue cycle facilities, including providing cycle priority across side roads and accesses. Improve surface quality of facility and implement full junction schemes at major junctions to provide continuous facility.

14.2 Laburnum Avenue Provide cycle friendly traffic calming and 11 wayfinding

19.5 Preston Road – Provide continuous on-road cycle facility 11 Ecclesfield Avenue with cycle- friendly traffic calming junction eastwards measures

8.1 - Freetown Way Widen and provide light segregation 9 8.3 along existing cycle lanes in both directions for full route, by widening into central reservation

16.1 Mount Pleasant Upgrade existing off-road cycle routes 9 Option along Ellis Street, Craven Street North. 1 Upgrade existing signalised crossing of Holderness Road. Redirect route along Burleigh Street, Courtney Street and Dansom Lane North. Provide cycle priority at side roads and accesses, with raised tables as appropriate.

19.1 Southcoates Lane – Provide continuous cycle facility all the 9 approaching Holderness way to Holderness Road signalised Road junction junction

9.5 Foster Street Provide cycle crossing facilities to 8 provide access to proposed 2-way segregated cycle track on northern side

10.20 Sutton Road – crossing Upgrade existing uncontrolled crossing to 8 east of Ennerdale parallel cycle and pedestrian zebra roundabout crossing

10.5 Copenhagen Road Provide parallel cycle and pedestrian 8 (crossing) zebra crossing with dropped kerbs

11.2 Holwell Road Upgrade existing uncontrolled crossing to 8 parallel cycle and pedestrian zebra crossing. Provide raised tables where appropriate

3.6 Pearson Park – Park Provide flush speed table at uncontrolled 7 Road junction crossing

Ref Location Proposal Score

15.1 Trans Pennine Trail Provide flush kerbs and cycle priority 7 across side roads and access

15.2 Trans Pennine Trail / As per proposal ref: 15.5 . Resurfacing to 7 Hornsea Cycle Route include minor widening to ensure consistent widen along full route

15.5 Trans Pennine Trail / Improve access onto route from 7 Hornsea Cycle Route residential areas. Remove obstructions (where appropriate) and resurface existing cycle facility. Trim vegetation encroachment

20.3 Cycle track – Bilsdale Slope leading edges of slabs to form 7 Grove end more smoothly ramped surface

21.1 Hedon Road Widen and resurface cycle crossings at 7 side roads and junctions for existing cycle track. Remove / relocate obstructions from existing cycle facility and provide improved wayfinding

9.7 Stoneferry Road – Mount Provide ramps across side road 6 Pleasant Roundabout to accesses with cycle priority at junctions Railway Bridge and accesses. Resurface existing cycle track, improve signing and marking.

10.19 Between roundabouts for Resurface and widen existing segregated 6 Ennerdale / Thomas cycle track/ footpath. Provide kerb Clarkson Way and segregation between cyclists and Ennerdale / Sutton Road pedestrians

15.4 Trans Pennine Trail / Remove obstructions and reinstate 6 Hornsea Cycle Route footway

19.2 Southcoates Lane Remove obstructions and reinstate 6 footway. Provide cycle priority across side roads and accesses

20.1 Exeter Grove – Preston Widen and resurface existing cycle 6 Road junction facilities. Provide new facilities to form single, continuous facility along route. Relocate existing pedestrian guardrails and provide dropped kerb at back of footway to improve cycle access onto Exeter Grove from Preston Road.

20.4 Cycle bridge over railway Provide means for water to drain off 6 line bridge

5.1 Cycle track crossing at Improve responsiveness of existing 5 Rawling Way toucan crossing

Ref Location Proposal Score

6.1 Hessle Road (Full Length Provide light segregation along existing 5 - Hawthorne Ave to City cycle facility. Improve responsiveness of boundary) existing toucan crossing

10.6 Underpass and link Carry out maintenance works, including 5 between Copenhagen improving lighting. Carry out public realm Road and Rotterdam and wayfinding works Road

10.7 Rotterdam Road (Link Repair minor surface defects and 5 between Copenhagen improve wayfinding signage along link Road and Hamburg route Road)

11.4 Holwell Road - mainly Resurface existing cycle facility between 5 between roundabouts roundabouts. Repair surface defects and with Barnstaple Road correct tactile paving along rest of route and Sutton Road

1.3 - Beverley Road Widen and provide continuous facility. 4 1.7 (Ferensway to Dunswell Provide light segregation and minor Stage Roundabout) signal improvements (e.g. low level 1 signals and early starts) where feasible

5.4 Osbourne Street – Provide low level signals and early starts 4 Ferensway junction for cyclists. Amendments to junction may be required as part of A63 Castle Street Improvement Scheme

8.4 Freetown Way Provide low level signals and early starts 4 for cyclists at existing signalised junctions

8.5 Freetown Way - North Improve off-road facilities and transitions 4 Option Bridge to on-road facilities either side of bridge 1

8.6 North Bridge to Witham Provide low level signals, early starts and 4 junction with Great Union advance stop lines for cyclists at existing Street signalised junction

8.9 Witham – Clarence Widen and provide continuous cycle lane 4 Street junction through junction. Add low level signals and early starts for cyclists

9.3 (New) Cleveland Street / Provide low level signals and early starts 4 Great Union Street - for cyclists at existing signalised junctions Chapman Street / Swann Street junction

9.9 Stoneferry Road – Mount Provide cycle priority crossings at 4 Pleasant Roundabout roundabout

Ref Location Proposal Score

10.8 Connection between Provide new cycle track between 4 Hamburg Road (on-road Hamburg Road and Foredyke Route advisory route) and Foredyke Route

17.1 Clarence Street / Alfred Provide low level signals and early starts 4 Gelder Street for cyclists at existing signalised junctions

19.3 Southcoates Lane / Amend signals to allow transition 4 Southcoates Avenue / between existing cycle facilities on Preston Road junction Preston Road and Southcoates Lane

10.9 Hamburg Road (Link Provide additional cycle markings 3 between Rotterdam (1057s) and wayfinding. Add sinusoidal Road and Foredyke road humps along route Route)

21.2 Hedon Road Review existing cycle signage with aim to 3 reduce and avoid confusion

21.4 Hedon Road Remove unnecessary tactiles to create 3 more uniform facility (excessive ‘repeater’ tactiles are in place)

10.15 Ennerdale – Thomas Revised junction layout to increase -7 Clarkson Way number of traffic lanes on entry arms, roundabout proposed as part of Kingswood AAP mitigation work. No provision of cycle infrastructure included in proposal

5.3.3 It is important to recognise that a comprehensive Secondary and Tertiary network is also required to feed the network of Core Network routes, providing links to residential estates, places of employment, schools and amenities that are located away from the Core Network. The majority of Secondary and Tertiary routes take in quieter streets, therefore typical treatments that will be considered for the Secondary and Tertiary network include:

• Refresh and widen existing cycle facilities (1.8m minimum);

• Improve signing and carry out maintenance tasks (e.g. vegetation trimming, repairing surface defects);

• Upgrade crossing facilities to parallel zebras or toucans;

• Provide cycle facilities across/at junctions and accesses.

5.3.4 The implementation of improvements on the Secondary and Tertiary Network routes should follow the proposed prioritisation of the Core Network. For example, improvements to the Secondary and Tertiary routes which link to the Beverley Road route (which scores highly in the prioritisation matrix on the Core Network) should be prioritised over others, as they will feed an established route and help to create a comprehensive and joined up network of cycle routes, rather creating a piecemeal network that is not well connected.

5.3.5 Specific funding will be required for the implementation of improvements to the Secondary and Tertiary Network routes, and an appropriate budget will be identified once the required Secondary and Tertiary improvements have been identified and costed.

5.4 Signing & Branding

5.4.1 It is recommended that signing and branding strategy which enables users to navigate the cycle network is devised. The strategy should set out the proposals for the way the Core Network is to be branded, including consideration of names/numbers for each route, the colours to be used and the way signing is to be implemented to ensure route continuity and legibility but minimise sign clutter. The strategy should identify a clear brand identity, be practical to implement and easy to maintain in the future.

5.4.2 The strategy should also consider the signing and branding requirements for the Secondary and Tertiary network, including consideration of how key trip generators will be connected to the Core Network. The signing and branding requirements of new developments should also be considered as part of the strategy.

5.4.3 A consultation exercise should be undertaken to identify preferred names/brands for each route, perhaps involving local school children. Each of the Core Network routes should have a clear brand identity to support ease of use. The use of a ‘tube’ style network should also be considered for use on maps, notice boards, and other promotional materials.

Examples of numbered route branding

Example of London Cycle Superhighway Branding

6 Consultation

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This LCWIP report is currently at a draft stage and it is proposed to undertake both stakeholder and public consultation on the proposed network plan and improvements programme. Feedback from the consultation stage will be incorporated within the final version of the LCWIP, and any amendments to the draft made as appropriate.

6.2 Surveys 6.3 Interactive Consultation Comments 6.4 Consultation Results

6.5 Consultation Conclusion

7 Integration and Application

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The final stage of the LCWIP process seeks to ensure that the LCWIP is integrated into local policy, strategy and plans and that it is reviewed and updated as appropriate:

7.2 Integration into Policy

7.2.1 As discussed in Section 2.2, this LCWIP sits in the context of current local policy, including the adopted Hull Local Plan, Kingswood Area Action Plan and Local Transport Plan. It also shares the objectives of the Hull Cycling Action Plan 2015- 2017, the Hull City Council 2017 Air Quality Strategy, HC&L’s Towards an Active Hull 2018-2018 and the emerging 2030 Hull Carbon Neutral Strategy.

7.2.2 Policy 36 of the Local Plan states that new developments provide a positive contribution towards the development of the walking and cycling network. This LCWIP identifies the improvements required in order to deliver a joined up walking and cycling network, and should therefore be used as a guide as to the infrastructure improvements that should be secured as part of new developments.

7.2.3 The Hull Local Transport Plan is currently being updated and a new Hull Transport Strategy will be published in 2020. The recommendations of this LCWIP are to be integrated within the new Transport Strategy to ensure that it is reflected in the latest transport policy and to ensure a mechanism for delivery.

7.2.4 Any new and revised local policy documents, including future revisions to the Local Plan and Area Action Plans should reference this LCWIP and take its recommendations and proposed improvements into consideration. This will ensure that the proposed Core, Secondary and Tertiary route network is referenced across all local policy, which will assist in its delivery.

7.3 Funding and Delivery

7.3.1 It is expected that many of the Quick Wins identified within this LCWIP will be implemented utilising existing or future Council walking and cycling budgets. However, it is recognised that many of the medium and long-term schemes require a significant amount of investment, which may not be achievable to deliver within Council budgets. This LCWIP will therefore be used as part of funding bids and business cases for future investment in walking and cycling infrastructure in the city, such as grants from the Department for Transport.

7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

7.4.1 It is important that an appropriate monitoring and evaluation strategy is employed to ensure the delivery of the improvements identified within this LCWIP within the appropriate timescales. The short-term improvements are to be delivered within a 3-year timeframe, medium term improvements within a 5 year timeframe, and long term improvements within a 10 year timeframe. The delivery of a joined up and coherent cycle network, including all of the identified Core, Secondary and Tertiary routes should therefore be complete within 10 years.

7.4.2 The DfT LCWIP guidance recommends that the LCWIP document should be reviewed and updated every four to five years to reflect progress made with implementation. However, it is also recommended that an annual review is undertaken to check progress towards the delivery of the identified improvements, including the identification of a short-term action plan and any gaps in funding.

Appendix 1 – Existing Cycling and Traffic Flows

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 – Key Trip Attractors & Secondary Schools

Appendix 2

Appendix 3 – Hull and ERYC MSOAs

Appendix 3

Appendix 4 – People’s Panel Surveys

Appendix 4

Appendix 5 – MSOA to MSOA Cycle Movements

Appendix 5

Appendix 6 – Cycle Route Sections

Appendix 6

Appendix 7 – Cyclists per Route Section

Appendix 7

Appendix 8 – Core Network Routes

Appendix 8

Appendix 9 – Network Prioritisation

Appendix 9

Appendix 10 – Secondary and Tertiary Network Routes

Appendix 10

Appendix 11 – Quick Wins Improvement Report

Appendix 11

Appendix 12 – Quick Wins Scoring Matrix

Appendix 12

Appendix 13 – Medium/Long Term Improvements Scoring Matrix

Appendix 13