Further details shared on Tadcaster Road cycling / walking scheme

Dringhouses & Woodthorpe ward councillors have welcomed the publication of further details of measures designed to support cycling, walking and bus use along the Tadcaster Road corridor and a commitment for further engagement with residents and modal groups on ‘light segregation’ proposals designed to improve cyclist safety.

These proposals will be considered at a public Executive Member for Transport Decision Session on Tuesday 18 January at 10am.

The report being discussed at the meeting is available HERE.

The proposed £1.4m scheme is funded from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s Transforming Cities Fund and will be delivered as part of a wider package of measures funded by the Department for Transport’s Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund. The £1.4m funding can only be used on measures to promote cycling, walking and bus use, and cannot be diverted into general highway maintenance.

The Tadcaster Road proposals have been informed by feedback from residents

The latest draft of the proposals take into account feedback from residents that was submitted during a consultation exercise held in August and September 2021, which informed revised proposals set out in a report to a Decision Session held in October 2021. The October report stated that work would be undertaken to explore options for ‘light segregation’ along sections of Tadcaster Road to offer cyclists better protection. It also committed to looking again at proposals to relocate an inbound bus stop near to Slingsby Grove and the positioning of a proposed new pedestrian crossing in that area, both of which had attracted comments and concerns in the consultation.

The report to be considered at the 18 January meeting contains further revised proposals – summarised below – which reflect feedback received and detailed design and costing work undertaken:

  • Widening of the footpath / cycle path at the corner of Tadcaster Road and Knavesmire Road.
  • Confirmation of the proposed pedestrian crossing near to the junction with Nelsons Lane.
  • The pedestrian crossing proposed for The Horseshoe area is to be moved to just south of Slingsby Grove (nearer to the shops), retaining a pedestrian refuge to cater for crossing movements near Middlethorpe Grove.
  • The proposal to relocate the inbound bus stop near Slingsby Grove 75 metres south has been dropped. Instead, it is proposed to retain the bus stop within the shopping area, placing it approximately 20 metres north of its current location. This would create a continuous parking / loading bay outside the shops and provide an opportunity to take steps to improve sight lines for vehicles turning right out of Slingsby Grove. The report commits to localised consultation with residents and businesses in the Slingsby Grove area about the proposed changes from the plans presented last year.
  • Work is to continue to identify measures to improve the very narrow shared cycle / foot path opposite the Sim Balk Lane junction – known as ‘cemetery corner’ – with funds set aside to accommodate a scheme at this location.

Some sections of ‘light segregation’ are proposed as a means to improve cyclist safety on the corridor. The report notes that a variety of different techniques are being used by different local authorities. It states that design options should be considered carefully to minimise maintenance and visual intrusion while protecting users in the lane.

The various constraints along Tadcaster Road are summarised in the report, and these mean it is not possible to provide segregation all the way along the corridor but it is proposed to use segregation (in the form of bolt-down ‘rails’) at a number of locations where cyclists are most vulnerable. It is also proposed to introduce some light segregation in the form of a ‘stepped cycle lane’ on a section of Tadcaster Road in the Hunters Way area, where the road is wide enough to accommodate this.

The report commits to further engagement to refine the approach to light segregation which is proposed and to identify and address any issues or concerns that may be raised. Local councillors will ensure that residents are kept informed and have the opportunity to raise any comments or concerns.

6 thoughts on “Further details shared on Tadcaster Road cycling / walking scheme

  1. […] The local Councillors for Dringhouses have commented on their web site about more parochial concerns about pedestrian crossings and bus stop arrangements. (click) […]

  2. Dan Kelly says:

    I have two points to make on the proposal.

    1. How does the removal of the area for turning right onto Middlethorpe Grove (if driving towards York centre) benefit anyone? As it stands, this section of road already has a cycle lane in both directions, two full width lane for vehicles and the space for turning right. If this section of road was too narrow to accommodate cycle lanes then I would understand however it’s removal seems unjustified and is essentially being done to make life difficult for vehicle users.

    2. Whilst I realise that the scheme aims to improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, why is nothing being done to address the issue of traffic build up at the pedestrian crossing directly outside the college? Traffic backs up as far as the Horseshoe and Chaloners Road when students are starting college on a morning and likewise when they leave on an evening.

    • stephenfenton says:

      I have had a look back at the consultation materials from last August (https://www.yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/TadcasterRoad) particularly map A7, and it states at this location “wider lanes provided by removing right turn pocket.” I presume that the lanes referred to are the cycle lanes, and that the widening will make them compliant with Government guidance LTN1/20 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf) which stipulates that cycle lanes should be at least 1.5m in width. I will feed back your comments to officers working on the project.

      You are right that we could not have used the £1.4m from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to build an underpass between York College and Tesco. This really should have been built when the College re-located – I understand it was suggested, but rejected after objections were raised. Some work has been done recently to prove that an underpass is technically feasible, so we now need to find the money to make it happen. I do think however that it is not just this pedestrian crossing that causes tailbacks. Obviously the sheer volume of traffic is an issue, but the whole transport infrastructure around Askham Bar needs a re-think as it’s not working for motorists, cyclists or users of public transport. When we have greater certainty about the future of the former Park & Ride site (which is allocated for housing in the draft Local Plan), this will hopefully enable a fundamental re-design.

      • Dorinda says:

        Making cycling and walking more visible and safe will encourage people out of cars. Building an underpass from the college, especially bearing in mind anticipated housing construction nearby, would create an unsafe area not visible from the road and be a magnet for anti-social behaviour as well as deterring a large number of people from travelling to college by active means if they had to use an underpass to do so.
        Ensuring the safety and convenience of people who walk, wheel or cycle could ease the traffic in time as people switch travel modes. Changes to the off-road cycle lane by this crossing could send cyclists behind the nearby bus stop rather than along the road , preventing traffic being held up there.

        Not much can be done otherwise in terms of inevitable busy periods at start and end of the day.
        The junction of Cemetery Rd is bound to require major works I should think, in lieu of planned housing construction. I wonder whether Cllrs know timescales involved?

        • stephenfenton says:

          In relation to cemetery corner, I’d really like to see measures here included in the first phase of work, as it’s one of the most problematic sections of the corridor. I’m encouraged that funds have been set aside for measures at this location.

  3. Tim Pheby says:

    The plans lack detail on cycle lane and traffic lane widths to inform the design decisions made by officers. Why do the plans only show light separation for cyclists opposite side roads, other parts of road would benefit from them.

    The Slingsby Rd shops proposal has been watered down and inbound cyclists will be sandwiched between the parked cars and moving traffic and the occasional bus at the relocated stop. A cycle bypass inside the cycle parking inbound to match the outbound one is required to protect cyclists especially young people going to and from York College.

    The report has no mention of how many people use Tadcaster Rd, the number of collisions and their cost. It also does not mention the Cycling Level of Service tool which Government Guidance LTN 1/20 Cycling Infrastructure Design says should be used to assess the scheme and inform the design process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *