|
Economic, Regeneration Tourism and Transport
Project Development Fund |
|
|
SECTION A – PROJECT SCOPING |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
NYC Area Constituency Committee Name |
Thirsk and Malton |
||||
|
Project Name |
North Bay to South Bay Cycle Route Development |
||||
|
Description of Project Location |
North Bay to South Bay, a 1.9 mile route with footpaths but no existing cycling infrastructure |
||||
|
NYC Division(s) in which the project is located |
Scarborough |
||||
|
Project Lead Officer Details |
Name |
Keisha Moore |
|||
|
Job Title |
Senior Transport Planning Officer |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Telephone |
01609 536441 |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
1. PROJECT DETAILS |
|||||
|
Please outline why the budget is required and what are the current barriers to project development it will help overcome?
|
The budget would be spent on identifying and developing an active travel route between Scarborough North Bay and South Bay which was requested as a priority by the local Member.
However, there are several challenges with developing this route further which mean that officers do not recommend this route is endorsed by the membership.
Firstly this route around the headland takes the user through a private road. This private road supplies a car park currently owned and operated by NYC. This may raise safety concerns due to the number of manoeuvres made by vehicles within the car park. This would amplify the need for a fully segregated cycle track without taking away from the already busy pavements. This would be prohibitive due to the available space for construction preventing a complete cohesive route.
This also highlights a secondary issue due to the sheer volume of pedestrian traffic around the headland. There is already cycle parking to the north end of the headland and this would indicate that the headland itself is not a destination for cyclist but joining the north and south bay would be purely utilitarian. If this is the case then the route around the headland is not the most direct route and would not follow the key principles of LTN 1:20.
Data shows that there are around 10 cycling trips per day taken on this route for leisure purposes and an average of 5 walking trips per day. The use case compared with the costs for delivery do not highlight value for money at this time. Simply laying the tarmac on this route would be around £700,000 and there would be additional costs for segregation of users, markings and signage.
Further, the Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 1 keeps a route at the top of the cliff, however, when it was in the design stage Sustrans would have, if it could, used the North Bay-South Bay roads to give the route a much more coastal feel, however, that is not how it was designed likely due to accessibility issues presented on this route.
Finally, it should be noted that the corridor connecting the north and south bays was considered during the development of the LCWIP and was not seen as carrying sufficient benefit at that time to develop into a full proposal and due to the restrictions would not be a significant opportunity for leisure trips.
A feasibility study will not overcome the issues that surround the development of this route at the current time.
|
||||
|
Please detail what specific costs the budget will be spent on?
|
· It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
Please describe the future project that this activity will help to unlock.
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
2. STRATEGIC FIT |
|||||
|
Detail how the project will contribute to the North Yorkshire Council ‘Council Plan’ and the Economic Growth Strategy or the Destination Management Plan
(Reference should be made on how a future project will help deliver the respective strategies)
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
|
||||
|
3. LOCAL FIT |
|||||
|
Detail how this project meets local priorities including linkages with local regeneration plans and strategies. |
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time
|
||||
|
4. FINANCE |
|||||
|
Will the service area be making a financial contribution to the project development costs? If so, please detail.
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
Please confirm the amount of money required.
Please provide a breakdown of costs / estimates where available and how these have been calculated.
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time though it would cost in the region of £40,000 to develop a route of this size. |
||||
|
5. DELIVERY, TIMESCALES AND MONITORING |
|||||
|
What is the staffing resource within NYC required / how will it be resourced?
Has the capacity to complete the activity been confirmed with the relevant service manager?
Dependencies on other NYC services
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
Please outline the anticipated timeframe for delivery of the activity?
Please include details of how the activity will be procured (if required).
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
Can the proposed work to be funded delivered within the allocated financial year? |
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
How will progress and the outcome of the project be reported to the ACC to aid effective monitoring? |
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
6. BENEFITS |
|||||
|
What are the benefits of undertaking this work now?
What opportunities / estimated
economic, social or environmental
|
It is not recommended that this scheme is progressed at this time |
||||
|
AREA COMMITTEE SIGN OFF |
|||||
|
ACC Meeting Date When Project Scope Agreed |
|
Draft Minute Number |
|
||
|
Signed (ACC Chairman) |
|
Date |
|
||