24 Cycling - Future actions following Cycling Demonstration Town Project PDF 116 KB
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Report of the Head of Regeneration and Policy
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Cabinet Member with Special
Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy with regard to proposed future actions following on from the Cycling Demonstration Town Project.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
Option 1: That the grant offer be accepted and approval given for a procurement process for this works in combination with the Section 106 funds from the Globe Arena.
|
Option 2: Not to accept the offer of the funding. |
Option 3: |
Advantages |
Increased amenities for cycling to schools. Builds on the skills and infrastructure developed in delivering the CDT project. |
None |
|
Disadvantages |
None |
This would miss the opportunity to encourage more sustainable travel options for school pupils and staff as well as other members of the community. |
|
Risks |
There is a small element of risk that costs could exceed the budget but robust estimates have been used for the bid and additional funding from our revenue budget would be available. |
Reputational risk that the Lancaster City Council is not taking opportunities to promote sustainable transport measures |
|
Local Sustainable Transport Fund
|
Option 1: That the council note the bid in consortium with Sustrans , Devon County Council and 36 other local authorities and authorise officers to work up the bid if successful in the first round and report further details when available.
|
Option 2: That the council do not take forward this bidding process.
|
Option 3: None |
Advantages |
Further funding to promote cycling |
None
|
|
Disadvantages |
None |
Missed opportunity for funding to promote sustainable transport within the district |
|
Risks |
None |
Without continued funding the infrastructure and initiatives already in place from the CDT Project could go into decline and suffer |
|
Partnership working with the County Council
|
Option 1: That the Head of Regeneration & Policy be given delegated authority to agree partnership work with the County Council to deliver cycling schemes, subject to there being no additional call on City Council budgets |
Option 2: Do not work in partnership with the County.
|
Option 3: None |
Advantages |
Builds on existing partnering experience and provides fee income for work. |
None
|
|
Disadvantages |
None |
Missed opportunity for funded partnership working and loss of fee income for staff time |
|
Risks |
None |
Reputational |
|
Support for the Continuation of the Bike it Officer
|
Option 1: That the Council continue to work in partnership with Sustrans and support the Bike it Officer with £16.7k from Public Realm revenue budget. |
Option 2: Do not offer this support
|
Option 3: None |
Advantages |
Builds on existing partnering and continues valuable work to encourage school pupils to cycle safely and responsibly. Supports other proposed works (Links to Schools at Westgate & Heysham) |
None
|
|
Disadvantages |
Commits City Council revenue budget |
Local schools will lose the resource to encourage their pupils to use bicycles safely and responsibly |
|
Risks |
None |
Reputational |
|
The officer preferred option in each of the above was option 1. Sustainable methods of transport such as cycling are increasingly important for health, ... view the full minutes text for item 24