North Yorkshire County Council Area 6 (‘Area 6’) are launching a consultation on active travel measures on Beech Grove and Otley Road, from 24th October to 28th November 2022.
A letter to local residents comes in two parts:
There are a number of disappointing aspects to the consultation, but the issue of greatest concern is that the second of the two options for Beech Grove is of zero value to active travel.
On a more positive note, the question asked is as follows:
‘We would like to hear your comments on which option for both NPIF and Beech Grove would encourage you to take up more walking and cycling in the area.’
Area 6 consultation letter
This indicates that opinions based on how convenient it is to drive along these residential streets should not influence the outcome of the consultation. We need Area 6 to make sure they stick to that principle.
TL;DR
A summary of our response to the consultation is as follows.
Beech Grove
- Option 1 – yes
- Option 2 – absolutely not, it provides no active travel benefit
Otley Road
- Option 1 as varied by Option 2 – yes, but with the design changes we have been asking for
- Option 3 – no, it has no advantages and is a bad shared use design
How to Respond to the Consultation
Responses can be sent to Area6.Boroughbridge@northyorks.gov.uk, with the heading NPIF Phase 2 Consultation.
Please respond. The most important thing is to support Beech Grove Option 1 (NOT Option 2).
A suggested response follows:
Dear Area 6
suggested response to area 6
NPIF Phase 2 Consultation
1) Beech Grove
I support Option 1 (modal filters on Beech Grove and Lancaster Road). I do not support Option 2, which would have no benefit for walking or cycling.
2) Otley Road
I support Option 1 as modified by Option 2 (reaching Beech Grove via Victoria Road and Lancaster Road), but I would like there to be a parallel crossing of Otley Road near its junction with Beech Grove, and priority cycle crossings of the mouths of Park Avenue and West End Avenue.
I do not support Option 3 (Queens Road).
Meet the Designer
There is a ‘meet the designer’ event 4.30pm to 7.30pm on Friday 11th November 2022 at Harrogate Civic Centre.
A more detailed response to the designs follows.
Beech Grove
Option 1
Option 1 is the modal filters as before during the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order.
They cut out through traffic, which reduces the volume and speed of vehicles. This makes cycling safe, and provides a safe crossing of Beech Grove for those on foot.
In addition, a one-way plug at the junction of Victoria Road and Otley Road is proposed. This is to prevent the use of Victoria Road as a through route by drivers heading away from town.
Note: we have been told by Area 6 that as part of their active travel scheme for Victoria Avenue, they intend to allow drivers to go straight on from Beech Grove to Victoria Avenue. This would allay concerns about longer driving times for residents, but it is not mentioned in the consultation materials.
Option 1 is excellent and we support it.
Option 2
Option 2 is nonsense, and should not be presented as an option at all in this consultation. It provides zero benefit to active travel – indeed, it may make matters worse. We have pointed this out on multiple occasions going back to 2020 but Area 6 have not listened.
In Option 2 Area 6 are proposing:
- to make Beech Grove one way for motor vehicles southbound (away from town)
- to leave the parking in place
- that southbound cyclists would share the road with traffic as now
- that northbound cyclists would have a contraflow cycle lane
This image gives a clear idea of what is proposed and the available width.
Northbound (towards town)
Cycle lanes do not provide any protection from traffic, and most people will consider them to be unacceptable for safe cycling.
Anyway there simply isn’t enough width for parking, a traffic lane, and a contraflow cycle lane. The minimum width of a cycle lane is:
- 2m Desirable Minimum
- 1.5m Absolute Minimum at constraints (i.e. for short sections at pinch points only). Below 1.5m, cycle lanes should not be used
If Area 6 put in a contraflow cycle lane, it would be a narrow ‘murder-strip’ in the gutter, very likely 1m30 wide at the most – i.e. less than the Absolute Minimum width.
Oncoming traffic would be less likely to slow down to pass, as drivers would think ‘I’m in my lane, the cyclist is in theirs, so I’ll keep going at full speed.’
That would lead to unpleasant experiences with oncoming vehicles that would feel – and be – dangerous.
Southbound (away from town)
Cycling south could well be worse than now, because the carriageway would effectively be narrowed by the cycle lane. You’d be stuck between the parked cars and the cycle lane, potentially with impatient drivers behind, harassing you or close-passing you.
In our view it is unprofessional of Area 6 to put forward a so-called active travel scheme that in fact has zero benefit for active travel.
If they went ahead with Option 2, it would be because they wanted to look as though they were doing something, while actually doing nothing of value. The scheme would also fail to comply with Cycle Infrastructure Design guidance.
If they decided to go ahead with Option 2, we would not support it under any circumstances.
HDCA Suggested Alternative Option 2
If Area 6 need a second option for Beech Grove, it could be to remove the parking and replace it with a bi-directional cycle track with physical protection from traffic, in accordance with LTN 1/20.
Otley Road Phase 2
Three options are presented for Otley Road Phase 2 (Cold Bath Road junction to Beech Grove).
Option 1
Option 1 is the current design.
We have asked for the following design changes, but they have not been included in the any of the options:
- a ‘straight on’ option for cyclists at the Otley Road junction with Arthurs Avenue and Cold Bath Road, instead of cyclists being asked to wait at Toucan crossings shared with pedestrians
- where footway and cycleway are segregated there should be a level difference not white line segregation
- a priority cycle crossing of the junction of West End Avenue, where the design shows no crossing
- a priority cycle crossing of the junction of Park Avenue
- a crossing of Otley Road from Beech Grove to Park Avenue
Option 1 continues along Otley Road to Beech Grove, but the proposed shared use pavement between Victoria Road and Beech Grove is narrow. We would be happy for eastbound cyclists to be sent down Victoria Road instead, to join Beech Grove via Lancaster Road. That is Option 2.
Option 2
Option 2 involves diverting east/northbound cyclists down Victoria Road, to join Beech Grove via Lancaster Road.
That is fine, but it only works in combination with Beech Grove Option 1 (i.e. modal filters on Lancaster Road and Beech Grove).
Any contraflow cycle lane should be a minimum of 2m wide, since 1.5m is only for short sections at constraints.
Also, a contraflow cycle lane may not be needed (para 7.3.4-5 of LTN 1/20).
It would need:
- a proper cycle entry lane at the junction with Otley Road and
- a 20mph speed limit
Finally, the light-controlled crossing of Otley Road between Victoria Road and Queens Road should be turned into a Toucan. This would mean that cyclists riding from the town centre to Otley Road (westbound) could use Victoria Road and cross Otley Road here.
Option 3
Option 3 diverts cyclists going down Otley Road via Queens Road to reach Beech Grove.
We are against Option 3 because:
- it fails cyclists who are not going to Beech Grove/the town centre. Some may want to continue to Park Avenue
- it is less direct/not the desire line
- the design is shared use pavements, which do not comply with LTN 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design guidance, and will reduce the level of service for pedestrians for no reason
It is hard to understand why Option 3 has been included in the consultation at all, since it has no advantages.
As a footnote, the parallel crossing in the Option 3 design is unnecessary.
The link and ‘suggested response’ made it very easy to respond to the Beech Grove and Otley Road consultation 🙂
Thanks!