case study 2 - Royal Town Planning Institute

CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
TITLE:
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
ISSUES:
How to reduce and manage increasing volumes of traffic
cutting through Cirencester Town Centre and improve the
physical environment for pedestrians, shoppers and local
businesses.
RESOURCES:
A discussion paper on the Cirencester Traffic and
Environment Plan; maps of the existing situation; maps and
diagrammatic proposals; photographs; extracts from
committee reports; a summary of newspaper cuttings and a
summary of responses from public consultations.
TASKS :
●
●
●
Producing a ‘mini’ traffic and environment plan for the
student’s home area.
Drawing up a transport-based SWOT analysis for the
student’s home area.
Drawing up a matrix of positive and negative factors facing
the local authority in this instance (e.g. time, finances, level of
priority)
ROLE:
Students can assume the role of a planning officer when
producing the ‘mini’ traffic and environment plan, taking into
consideration the wide range of views put forward as a result
of consultation with the public, local business, interest groups,
etc.
CONFLICTS:
The environmental consequences of implementing the plan.
The impacts on the economy, as a result of pedestrianisation.
The changes in traffic movements throughout the town as a
result of the implementation of proposals.
OPTIONS:
Which types of traffic management to employ; the ‘do
nothing’ option i.e. should the council proceed with the plan?
Consensus building - do you need to consult or allow
participation, or should the plan be adopted straight away?
Joint working - should the process of partnership continue
through to the stage of implementation?
Should the plan be comprehensive and deal with wider
issues - or should it concentrate on simply traffic issues, and
the environment in isolation. Is this the right approach?
DECISION:
Is a plan necessary? What form should the plan take?
(specific issues-based or comprehensive) Who needs to be
involved? (Considering the tiers of government, the public,
interest groups, etc.)
Page 2 / 1
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
BACKGROUND:
The Need for Action
Cirencester is a centre of historical and architectural interest; and attracts many
visitors from around the world. It also functions as a busy market town and
administrative centre, being the ‘capital of the Cotswolds’, and has a resident
population of approximately 17,600. The ‘Cotswolds’ is an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty in Gloucestershire.The town also has a large Conservation Area,
with many Listed Buildings, Structures and Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
Conflicts between vehicular traffic and other street users are commonplace, as a
large volume of traffic passes through the town centre.
As well as conflicts between the pedestrian and vehicle, there are also problems of
congestion; which result in an urban environment which is unpleasant and unsafe,
with wider implications for the natural environment.
It can be argued therefore, that there is a strong need for a comprehensive plan
which can address these problems; acting to calm and manage traffic in Cirencester,
as well as achieving other transportation and environmental benefits. This is an aim
that has been strongly supported by the Town, District and County Councils and is
supported by many interest groups and local people of Cirencester.
On average, between 7am and 7pm, some 25,000 vehicles currently enter the town
centre, of which 30 % (7,500) do not stop. This is traffic that does not need to travel
through the town. Yet, it contributes to the congestion and conflict and reduces the
enjoyment of those who live and work in the town, as well as visitors.
More recently, Cirencester has experienced the opening of the Cirencester/Stratton
bypass (A419/A417), completed in 1997, which aims to remove unnecessary traffic
from the town centre and achieve a safer and more pleasant environment.
This strategy has been one in a series of linked road building projects between the
M5 at Gloucester, and the M4 at Swindon.
This case study presents a summary of the problems and procedures, highlighting
key issues relating to both the traffic problems and the consultation/plan preparation
process, which provides the basis for a comparative exercise with the student’s
home area.
Page 2 / 2
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
WHY TAKE ACTION?
Unnecessary Traffic
Traffic growth is predicted to continue. The government has forecast that nationally,
traffic could increase by between 16% and 36%, by the year 2011.
This could be bad news for a town such as Cirencester, when it is currently
experiencing above national average traffic growth.
Huge numbers of visitors seeking access to the town itself also compounds the
problems associated with through traffic movements. The existing road layout, which
is based on mediaeval and Victorian street patterns, does not easily accommodate
these high levels of vehicular traffic.
An Incentive to Walk or Cycle?
Traffic in the central shopping streets causes hazards for pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users. Within the town, pavements are narrow, many of them are
less than 2m wide, and there are few facilities for cyclists or people with disabilities.
The number and type of traffic accidents in the town centre gives cause for concern.
Pedestrians accounted for 26% and cyclists 22%, of the total casualties caused by
all traffic accidents.
The problem of vehicle exhaust emissions is a particular issue during the summer
months, creating air pollution and generally detracting from the quality of the
environment.
Public Transport - the Missing Link!
Public transport could be better provided for. The town lacks a bus station for bus
travel. Passenger information is scattered, whilst linking bus trips can be confusing
and difficult, especially for the mobility impaired. Providing an integrated transport
plan for Cirencester is compounded by the fact that it is not served particularly well
by the railway; the nearest station being at Kemble, some 5 miles to the south west.
The Vitality of the Town
The town faces challenges from the growth of neighbouring towns; in this case
Swindon and Cheltenham. In addition, further threats to the heart of the town
continue to be posed by edge-of-centre retailers.
Page 2 / 3
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
Reproduced with the kind permission of Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright NC/1308/00
Generally, a large number of the town’s streets are dominated by traffic and public
spaces are sometimes spoiled by tarmac, signs, road markings, and other clutter.
There is considerable scope to improve the town’s appearance.
Page 2 / 4
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING?
Working in Partnership
The decision making process for the Cirencester Traffic and Environment Plan (CTEP)
involved a wide range of participants from different backgrounds; all, sharing a
common interest in the formation of the plan. It can be said that from the outset, the
CTEP has benefited from partnership working, and where the involvement of local
people has been seen as essential to the overall project.
Those that have participated in the formation of the CTEP have included; a Joint
Steering Group and Users Group.
The Joint Steering Group was formed from the combination of the three main
authorities concerned with the formation of the CTEP;
i.e. the Cirencester Town, Cotswold District and Gloucestershire County
Councils. Two representatives from each authority were present on the group,
accompanied by two representatives from the Users Group. The group was formed
with the intention of overseeing the production of the CTEP, as well as acting as a
means of exchanging views between the authorities.
The Users Group was formed from what were seen as ‘key users’ of the town
centre. The input of the Users Group has taken the form of experiences, opinions
and suggestions. Group membership has grown since the start of the project, and
now comprises a wide range of participants: Cirencester Town Council
Cotswold District Council
Gloucestershire County Council
Schools and Educational
Establishments
Eg. Kingshill School
Emergency
Services
Joint Steering Group
THE USERS
GROUP
Transport
Operators
Eg. Stagecoach
Local Amenity Societies
Eg. Cirencester Civic
Society
Public Information
Providers
Eg. Citizen’s Advice
Bureau
Commercial Groups
Eg. Chamber of Commerce
Local Charities &
Community Groups
Eg. DISC
Page 2 / 5
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
SKETCH OF PROPOSALS - PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY
Page 2 / 6
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
THE PLAN PROCESS
1. Preparation
Securing full participation of Town, District and County Councils;
Establishing Joint Steering and Users Groups;
Identifying and prioritizing the Plan’s Aims, and the area to be studied.
2. Gathering Information
Identifying the present situation;
Preparation of Cirencester Traffic Model to assess traffic flows etc, and measure
town centre air quality;
Public opinion collected on the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and submissions of
‘wish lists’ from the Users’ Group;
Preparation of traffic and environment proposals by the Users’ Group.
3. Generating Options
Drafting options for the Plan;
Testing options against the aims and Traffic Model for the town;
Seeking public reaction to the options.
4. Preparation of Draft Plan
Clarifying options, taking account of public opinion, to formulate a preferred
proposal;
Taking action to resolve ‘problem areas’;
Establishing main principles for design of e.g. pedestrianisation schemes, and
receiving comments on the preferred proposal;
Preparation of Concept Design, costings and implementation programme.
5. Refining the Proposal, Final Preparation and Publication of the Plan.
Further testing on Traffic Model and comparisons made against traffic volumes
after the bypass (A417/A419) construction;
Testing changes in air quality;
Further detailed examination of some aspects of the proposals;
Consideration of public responses to the Plan - resulting in a refinement of the final
Plan proposals;
Formal presentation of the Plan to the Town, District and County Councils.
6. Further Work and Implementation of Projects in the town
Work to help solve the identified problems to be done when funds become
available.
Page 2 / 7
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
GOVERNMENT POLICY:
PPG Planning Policy Guidance Note 13:Transport and Land-Use Planning
Planning policy guidance notes set out government policy on planning issues and
PPG 13 is concerned with transport in development plans. The document provides
advice on how local authorities should integrate transport and land-use planning
and aims to ensure that local authorities carry out their land-use policies and
transport programmes in ways that help to:
1.
2.
3.
Reduce growth in the length and number of motorized journeys;
Encourage alternative means of travel which have less environmental impact;
and so
Reduce reliance on the private car.
Thereby helping to meet the commitments in the Government’s Sustainable
Development Strategy.
The White Paper: Integrated Transport Policy.
The White Paper published by the government; ‘A New Deal for Transport - Better
for Everyone’ (July 1998) has provided a policy for integrated transport.
The Cirencester Traffic and Environment Plan (CTEP) has been written with this
policy firmly in mind.
Page 2 / 8
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
STAGES OF DECISION MAKING:
Members of the public
Users’ group
Strengths and weaknesses of study area and initial ideas for individual streets
Submission of 18 individual suggested traffic plans for the study area
Identification of traffic circulation options
Testing options against aims of Plan and Traffic Model
Public consultation
Joint steering group
Cirencester Town Council
Cotswold District Council
Gloucestershire County Council
Cirencester Traffic and Environment Plan (CTEP)
Page 2 / 9
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
S.W.O.T.
(STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS) ANALYSIS:
View of Black Jack Street looking North.
STRENGTHS/OPPORTUNITIES:
●
●
●
●
The concentration of buildings and spaces of great visual interest, along with
the physical ‘completeness’ of the area (especially within the Conservation Area);
The importance of the tower of the St. John the Baptist church which acts as a
familiar landmark, visible, not only from town centre areas but also on the
approaches into the town;
The importance of the sequences of views enjoyed by both motorist and
pedestrian in entering and circulating through the town centre;
The quality of the buildings that contribute to the character of the entrances to
the town, and to key corners and road bends within the town;
View of Cricklade Street looking NW, & View of Cricklade Street looking SE
Page 2 / 10
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
WEAKNESSES/THREATS:
●
The general lack of sense of place, character and spatial enclosure in the back
lands/backstreets behind the main historic streets;
●
The erosion of the historic character through poor road / pavement surfaces
and a clutter of signs, lines and outworn street furniture; i.e. lamposts,
seats, signs etc
●
The gateways to the centre at, for example, London Road or Tetbury Road
which appear visually unimportant;
●
The lack of signage to important buildings such as the Museum and Corn Hall
and the ‘invisibility’ of the Abbey Grounds from the centre;
●
Poor quality of connecting routes for pedestrians both within the town
centre and to outlying areas;
●
The poor quality of the environment, fixtures and furnishings in car parks;
●
The understatement of the Market Place at night;
●
The dominance of some areas by space devoted to vehicles, especially at
London Road, Sheep Street/Tetbury Road and in the Market Place;
●
Low quality of information and signage for pedestrians and insufficient visitor
interpretation of Plan Proposals
The above diagram illustrates a simplification of the current situation in Cirencester
with traffic cut throughs or ‘ratruns’.
Page 2 / 11
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
PROPOSALS
The CTEP proposals can be viewed on the following simplified map of Cirencester.
The map shows in greater detail how the plan’s proposals would affect the town and
which include:
●
An ‘Historic Core Zone’ with a 20-mph speed limit and a limited use of signs
and lines.
●
The enhancement of Market Place to create a better quality, ‘pedestrian
dominated’ space.
●
The design of the northern end of Cricklade Street as a pedestrian area.
●
Improved pedestrian crossings.
●
Improved public transport facilities with stops in South Way forming a local and
regional bus terminal.
●
Safer routes for cyclists.
●
A safer and more accessible environment for the elderly and less mobile.
●
New bus stops.
●
On-street, short term parking.
●
Servicing bays for shops.
●
A better distribution of taxi ranks.
●
Traffic calming within Watermoor to discourage through traffic.
●
High quality, natural materials for paving.
●
A safer and more flexible setting for the market.
●
A focal area for activities and seats in the town.
●
Strategy for improved signing.
Page 2 / 12
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
The illustration above shows the new traffic and pedestrian movements as a
result of the CTEP proposals
These proposals are aimed at discouraging through traffic from entering the town
centre ‘core zone’ by making it less attractive for car drivers and giving priority
to pedestrians, buses and cyclists, as well as improvements to the physical
environment. Through these changes, it is proposed that more cars will use the
relief road/bypass; and that the town centre will become a more attractive place
for residents and pedestrians., thereby improving the shopping environment to the
benefit of local traders and other businesses.
Page 2 / 13
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES:
The Consultation Process:
A statistical analysis of the questionnaire was undertaken and included in the
explanatory brochure distributed during public meetings and an exhibition, held in
June 1998. 2500 brochures were distributed, and of those, 382 (~15%) were
completed and returned, along with 13 individual letters. Of the returned
questionnaires, 85 were completed by year ten pupils (14/15 year olds) from
Cirencester Kings Hill School. A number of organisations within the town also
submitted representations.
Main Findings:
●
The proposals to improve the Market Place received significant support
(between 60-72 %), with many of the objectors seeking more restrictive
measures.
●
The proposal attracting the lowest level of support (at 53%) was the reversal of
traffic flow in Dyer Street and Lewis Lane. Concerns expressed included that it
would result in confusion, congestion and conflict.
●
Of all the proposals, the one that received the most support was the traffic
calming measures for the southern part of Lewis Lane, with 87% of
respondents favouring the idea.
●
Pedestrianisation of Cricklade Street was also well-supported (79%), as this
will provide a car - free shopping street.
●
Reversing the traffic flow in Cricklade Street (between Ashcroft Road and West
Way) was supported by 55% of respondents.
●
Traffic calming in the ‘historic core’ of the town received strong support (82%)
with traffic calming in the Watermoor area of the town also well supported
(78% of respondents in favour).
●
The proposals to create a central bus interchange (located next to the Forum
Car Park on the South Way)received 70 % support, despite some fears of
congestion.
●
67% believed that on the whole, the proposals would improve Cirencester, by
creating a more attractive central area and shopping area by removing cars and
giving greater priority to pedestrians/shoppers.
●
61.5% agreed that the Council should proceed with the scheme as proposed.
●
Many of the respondents agreed that greater consideration should be given to
the establishment of safe cycling routes into the town centre from main
residential areas, with improved cycle parking around the town centre.
Page 2 / 14
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
CTEP UPDATE : WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR.........?
The Plan has been approved, and now forms part of the Gloucestershire County
Local Transport Plan, but has not actually yet been implemented, as funding is still
being sought. Implementing the project will cost up to £3.5 million, spread over 5
years and funding is likely to come from a number of different sources, although
mainly Central Government and the District Council.
The project also received a Planning Achievement award from the Royal Town
Planning Institute in Summer 1999.
QUESTIONS / TASKS:
1.
Using the resources in the case study, prepare a table listing the main positive
and negative factors faced by Cotswold District Council in preparing the plan.
2.
Who do you think should have a say in the making of a Traffic and Environment
Plan like this and why? List the organisations which should be consulted if such
a plan were to be prepared in your own town.
3.
What would happen to an area/town such as Cirencester if the traffic problems
were not dealt with?
4.
Who else could have participated in a ‘Users group’?
5.
With the help of the information and resources in this case study prepare a
‘mini’ traffic and environment plan for your nearest town centre, or a similar
area in your locality. Prepare a schedule setting out existing problems
caused by traffic in the study area using the headings on the sheet provided.
then a list of proposals. Take account of the fact that there may be many valid
arguments for and against any proposals and include them in your study.
Present the reasons for each proposal in a clear manner, including
photographs/maps to illustrate how your proposals will change your area of
study. Think about how the plan will affect local businesses, general
movements within the central areas, and how it can address any major
problems you identify within the town centre. Common problems that exist with
in many U.K. town centres include :
●
Traffic congestion
●
Pedestrian safety
●
Conservation of old buildings and structures (e.g. bridges)
●
Creating a more pleasant environment within which to shop/work/live
6. Using the Cirencester case study as an example, examine a town in your home
area to assess whether similar measures to address traffic and environmental
problems have been used. How do they compare with what has been presented in
this case study. List the similarities and differences presented.
Page 2 / 15
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
SUMMARIZED NEWSPAPER CUTTINGS, COMMITTEE REPORTS
DURING THE CTEP PROCESS
SUMMARISED NEWSPAPER REPORTS :
“TRAFFIC PLAN IS UP FOR APPROVAL :
Three battles in three days lie ahead for Cirencester’s controversial Traffic and
Environment Plan. And there was a warning this week that if the £3.5 million plan’s
proposals do not win through, the town will go into decline. To enable the plan to
proceed in it’s present form all three authorities must approve it.”
“BEATING CIRENCESTER’S TRAFFIC PROBLEMS and making the town centre
more user-friendly will cost an estimated £3.5 million over the next five years.....
The cash would not be spent just on altering traffic flows and increased control of
vehicles, but would cover tree planting and landscaping at various points to make
the central area greener and more attractive.......The largest single amount will be
spent on the Market Place at the very heart of the town, narrowing the road and
widening the pavement.
Other parts of the scheme include reversing some of the traffic flow, getting rid of
double yellow lines wherever possible and restricting vehicular access in certain
strategic places.”
“TRAFFIC PLANS SHOULD NOT BE THE ‘END OF THE BOOK’ :
Approval of the Traffic and Environment Plan would be the end of only the first
chapter in the story....... Cllr. Nash, a Town, District and County Councillor, said:
‘These plans are not too dissimilar to some made 35 years ago. If we stop now it is
likely to be another 35 years before there is another chance.’ Adding that:
‘It has been more than two years since work began on preparing a traffic plan to
meet the needs of Cirencester for the first part of the next Millennium.’
“OUR SMALL TOWNS ARE SAD AT HEART. PLANNERS SHOULD LOOK
ABROAD FOR IDEAS.........People will use towns only if they retain some of their
commercial magnetism. The best-managed towns are those whose charm not only
predates the motor car but post dates it.”
Page 2 / 16
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
SOUNDBITES (Taken from letters to the editor of local press) :
‘All over Britain there are towns where traffic schemes have improved the lot of
pedestrians and shoppers and enhanced the trade of shopkeepers. Yet always,
when the changes were first mooted, there were cries of doom and despair from the
trading community and a recent correspondent on this page wanted Cirencester
‘to stay the way it has always been’. But it never has done; the town is changing all
the time and will die if it does not.’
Michael Clarke
‘With the ever-increasing volume of traffic on our roads and in town centres, it is
vital that changes are made to avoid total chaos. The plans put forward by the
council take a large step forward in attempting to stop this beautiful market town
from becoming a traffic nightmare. There are no magic solutions which will resolve
traffic congestion problems without altering the daily routes of many people who live
in or near Cirencester. To leave things as they are would be shortsighted in the long
term.’
Mr & Mrs M Webb
‘Why do we want a change? Traffic flows quite nicely, parking is no big problem.
Buses and taxis come and go quite smoothly, the accident record - be it vehicle or
pedestrian - is quite low.
Now that the bypass is open, it has taken so much pressure off the town that I think
the majority of drivers, who are also pedestrians, don’t forget, would veto this
change for change sake.’
J Harris
‘I think the main motivation behind the traffic scheme is that there is a desire to
spend a large sum of somebody’s money (anybody’s money) on a grand scheme
that will be noticed.’
K Telling
THE ROLE OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNER:
The planners in this instance primarily acted as project managers during the
preparation of the CTEP. This role could be categorized under the following
headings:
●
PLAN PREPARATION :
Initially, the District Council produced a vitality/viability working paper on traffic and
retail in Cirencester to help the preparation of policy in the Local Plan. From this,
the Local Plan proposed the need for a Traffic and Environment Plan.
The District Council initiated the production of the CTEP, and elected to take on an
administrative and managerial role, during its preparation.
Page 2 / 17
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
●
SURVEY WORK :
Much of the survey work was undertaken by the planning department;
complemented by work done by private planning consultants. This included
undertaking research into current pressures/important issues surrounding the plan
area, as well as looking at long term problems, and ways to address them.
The planners also undertook consultation exercises with local councillors/residents
groups/local businesses on primary issues/main concerns.
Liaison with other officers in the District Council; e.g. with environmental health
officers during the air quality studies.
●
ARRANGING CONSULTATION :
The planners led the consultation process, through preparing and analysing the
questionnaires. They also acted to facilitate discussion within the Users Group,
organised meetings and set timetables. Also their role included an overall
responsibility for the production of exhibition/display materials and leaflets for public
consultation.
●
NEGOTIATION / CONSENSUS BUILDING :
Within this remit came the role of informer and facilitator of the Users Group, as well
as helping the Steering Group to keep the issues it discussed broad and general,
rather than too concentrated on one particular topic.
This role was important because the CTEP is a plan which needs to embrace
transport issues alongside urban design requirements, the local economy and the
environment.
Although not solely confined to the planner, each stage of the plan throughout its
formulation was debated and negotiated, where the planner initiated discussion.
When more specialist topics were debated, for example on road/parking matters,
the County Highways Authority led discussion.
Primarily, the District planning department complemented the County and Town
Councils with knowledge of the town; specifically, the built heritage, archaeology
and also broader public interest issues of environmental impact.
The planner’s activity in this instance also extended to that of public relations (PR) being the first point of contact with the media during the formulation of the plan.
Media coverage was sought throughout the plan preparation period, as a way of
complementing the other means of public consultation.
●
IMPLEMENTATION DURING WORKS :
The planners role in the implementation of the CTEP has not yet been fully
established, and will be under discussion in the near future.
Page 2 / 18
CASE STUDY 2
CIRENCESTER TRAFFIC AND
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
Page 2 / 19