Issue - meetings

Stockport Cycling Strategic Review

Meeting: 25/09/2024 - Scrutiny Review Panel - Stockport Cycling Strategic Review (Item 5)

5 Stockport Cycling Monitoring and Evaluation pdf icon PDF 767 KB

To consider a report of the Director of Place Management.

 

The report sets out the council’s monitoring and evaluation procedures which are undertaken at both a borough level and an individual scheme level.

 

The panel is recommended to note and comment on the report.

 

Officer contact: Jamie Birtles on 07356 120 423 or email jamie.birtles@stockport.gov.uk and Sue Stevenson on 0161 474 4351 or email sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A representative of the Director of Place Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the council’s monitoring and evaluation procedures which were undertaken at both a borough level and an individual scheme level.

 

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

 

·         Members welcomed the report.

·         Monitoring at the cycle route on Dean Road remained active; cameras were positioned on lampposts and data from the past five years could be made available to members.

·         Members requested data for the cycle lane at the Five Ways and Chester Road junction; in particular data related to use of the cycle lane in both directions. Anecdotally it was noted that more cyclists appeared to use the route downhill rather than uphill.

·         Data on cycle routes was collected on weekdays, not weekends as leisure users and cycle clubs could skew results. The data was collected by one team and a number of sources of data were analysed including feedback from cyclists, conversations with interest groups and schools about their experiences and what could be improved. That data fed into the design of cycle routes.

·         Data was usually collected in October or November which were considered to be neutral months. The data collection took place over several days. 

·         A standard for monitoring cycle routes was being developed at a GM level.

·         Members requested that consideration be given to the language used in the evaluation of cycle routes. Whilst part of the success of cycle routes included segregating bikes from traffic and keeping cyclists safe, it also involved value for money, increasing the numbers of cyclists and improving traffic flow.

·         In evaluating the development of a cycling scheme, it was important to understand what changes schemes went through in the development stage, and how and why those changes came about.

·         The indicators of the success of any cycling scheme would be both qualitative and quantitative.

·         The funding for cycle schemes was piecemeal and after 20 years Stockport still only had a partial network.

·         The data included within the appendices of the report, related to residents’ experience of safety, was undertaken as part of a national survey and included users’ experience of transport systems outside Stockport. It was not possible, therefore, to guarantee that it reflected local experiences.

·         Data was shared with other Greater Manchester Local Authorities.

·         The data showed some long term trends. For example, satisfaction related to children cycling to school had risen.

·         The ‘Bikeability’ scheme was a national scheme. Stockport bid for funding from the scheme annually and worked collaboratively with Stockport schools to implement the scheme.

·         The council had data on how pupils travel to school through school travel plans. In addition, Greater Manchester had a data collection programme, ‘Mode Shift’ which held data related to modes of travel to school.

·         Members suggested that the review should recommend that schools should encourage sustainable travel.

·         Members also suggested that this review should encourage a better flow of information at a GM level.

·         The impact of 20 mph zones in encouraging walking and cycling was considered. It was reported that much of the data related to 20 mph zones was London-centric where there were different powers of enforcement and higher density living. Whilst this panel could review that data, it was important to bear in mind that it should not be transplanted wholesale.

·         There was a balance to be struck in creating 20 mph zones. Although they were appropriate for residential roads, if local residents were not in favour of the 20 mph zone, there was less likely to be compliance. Imposing 20 mph zones upon a community was rarely successful.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.