A update on WCC’s current approach, plans to improve/expand this work, and present a couple of examples to Members.
David Ayton-Hill informed the committee that this showed what kind of evaluation work was done with transport schemes and how it was used to ensure that schemes were developing/delivering what they should. The approach varied depending on the scheme e.g. DfT schemes have significant monitoring requirements in them and these would be set out in the grant conditions i.e. cost against travel time benefits, congestion, input into the economy and impact on carbon emissions. Some schemes will have a particular requirement like monitoring air quality.
Warwickshire County Council capital projects do not have such a structured monitoring evaluation framework, but the transport and finance teams were working on this to ensure a better evaluation. Larger schemes have a lot more evaluation compared to smaller schemes. A consistent evaluation scheme for all schemes will be sought.
The impact of casualty reduction schemes was always tracked in terms of KSI statistics (killed and seriously injured). These schemes were implemented where there was clear evidence/a cluster of accidents that were attributable to common factors. Once implemented, these schemes would be tracked over the next five years to ensure that injury collisions were reducing and any ‘lessons learnt’ were implemented.
The new cameras had enhanced monitoring capabilities that could track traffic using AI; this included cyclists and pedestrians. This would be fed into future monitoring arrangements for active travel schemes to ensure that these schemes were influencing active travel.
This item was due to come back in full with examples of these schemes including how schemes were presented and developed. This will include: a DfT scheme, a major capital investment scheme and casualty reduction scheme.
In response to Councillor Watson, David Ayton-Hill said that he did not think developer schemes were monitored individually. However, JLR (Jaguar Landrover) were worked with on their Section 278 schemes, and this would be tracked. All road safety schemes (including developer ones) went through a road safety audit.
In response to the Chair, David Ayton-Hill confirmed that there were three audits done with these schemes, one before, one during and one after. If things were not up to standard then they were changed.
Following a question from Councillor Bhagwant Pandher, David Ayton-Hill stated that for casualty reduction schemes, they looked at all accidents in an area and not just KSIs. All personal injury collisions were monitored countywide and every KSI had an in-depth review with the police, so they know what caused it. There had been five personal injury collisions within 100 sites in Warwickshire over three years; these were the priority areas. All decisions were evidence led where collisions could be seen.
Councillor Andy Crump concurred with this and added that most road accidents in Warwickshire were caused by people not paying attention or while they were under the influence of drink/drugs. Accidents in Warwickshire were too high, but they had decreased gradually. Road safety education officers were planning to go into every school in Warwickshire to spread road safety education.
Following a supplementary from Councillor Watson, David Ayton-Hill agreed to have a note stating how changes were driven for this would be useful to share with parish/town councils and residents.
In response to Councillor Matecki, David Ayton-Hill confirmed that the increase of costs was starting to affect schemes, but existing ongoing schemes should be covered by the contractors. New schemes would need rethinking if they were unaffordable. The DfT gives a specific amount of funding for their schemes to be delivered and if it went over the amount given, then the council would need to make the difference.
In response to the Chair, and delays or changes from schemes would need to be obtained from Scott Tompkins.