Content

10.1

The Committee
considered a report of the Executive Director-City Futures
setting out an analysis of the
effect of an 18-month Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) used to
implement specific interventions on the highway as part of the
Sheaf Valley Cycle Route. The ETO and interventions were
implemented in May 2022, with the ETO due to expire in November
2023.
 
The
report included the results of formal consultation, receipt of
objections, along with feedback received pre and post formal
consultation. The consultation sought the views of residents,
visitors to the area, businesses, local groups, institutions, and
statutory groups. Further monitoring and evaluation of the scheme
had been carried out to help quantify the outcomes of the
scheme.

10.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

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

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

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

•      
Make all interventions permanent.

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

•      
Make some interventions permanent and remove others.

 10.4.2

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

10.4.3

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

10.4.4

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

10.4.5

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

10.4.6

Modify/remove some interventions.
 

10.4.7

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

10.4.8

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

10.4.9

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

10.4.10

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

10.4.11

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

10.4.12

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