Kirklees Council and Leeds City Council, in partnership with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, are developing an initial scheme for the A644 and A653 routes between Mirfield – Dewsbury – Leeds, that aims to improve travel opportunities, reliability and the local environment.
The plans and option to respond to the consultation can be found here: https://www.yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/m2d2l
The Leeds Cycling Campaign response can be found below, please feel free to use any of the points raised in your own personal response.
Here is a link to the Kirklees Cycle Campaign response also.
The consultation closes at midnight on Friday 25th September.
Preface
Leeds Cycling Campaign welcomes the plans to extend segregated cycle routes along Dewsbury Road to White Rose Shopping Centre and onto Tingley. The current situation for cyclists to travel from Morley to Leeds via a dual carriageway is unacceptable and we welcome that this is now being addressed. We would like to ensure that the proposals for this scheme cater for all cyclists, regardless of type of cycle, age or level of experience, and that conflicts with pedestrians are designed out of the scheme. Our response will mainly be concerned with Sections E and F which are within Leeds.
We want this route to be seen not only as a link between Morley, Tingley, White Rose and Leeds but as a way for locals to access the new train station, to do their grocery shopping and to travel for leisure.
Included in this response there are a number of questions which we would like to have addressed by the scheme designers. Some of these questions are about details which the consultation document is not able to show at the supplied scale. There are several things we wanted to address within the early stages of the design, such as cycle parking and maintenance plans, including whether a road sweeper could travel down the cycle paths, and links to current and future developments such as at Capitol Park.
Section E. Tingley to White Rose
We are happy that the shared use path alongside the A653 will increase to a width of 3m which will allow safe passing of slower path users as well as bi-directional movements. Estimated pedestrian and cycle numbers may require the minimum with to be upgraded to 4.5m as recommended in LTN 1/20 (Table 6.3) especially due to the amount of additional housing planned around this route. Additionally, we welcome that the shared use path is taken around the bus stops to avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. We have concerns that the separation of the shared use path and carriageway with only a 1.5m buffer along the side of the A653 is not sufficient for a national speed limit road and we ask that you look at creating a 3.5m buffer as recommended in LTN 1/20 (table 6.1).
Can we have some more detail on the types of crossing design being considered for the roundabouts at the retail park (Section E2) and Wide Lane (E3)? Due to the volume of motor traffic at these locations, these must be signalised and with a short wait phase for users, so as not to encourage risky crossing manoeuvres.
We have concerns that the crossing in front of the petrol station on the A653 will be a major hazard on this route as the entrance is wide and cars are driven at high speeds on the carriageway. The diagram shows a continual crossing with no setback. We would like to know what the council is considering to slow motor traffic speeds, increase sight lines and slow the speed of cars entering and exiting over the shared space path. What measures are being taken to make sure that drivers entering and exiting the petrol station/coffee shop are aware that cyclists and pedestrians will be travelling in both directions?
Capitol Park is a large future employer in the area. We ask that the council works with the developers to introduce safe, separated cycle lane access to the shared path on the A653. Currently cyclists travelling up Topcliffe Lane have to share a narrow pavement with pedestrians or the carriageway. As this development will have a large number of lorries, if road width is not sufficient to separate cycles from motor vehicles, then could an alternative route be laid from the A653 for cyclists and pedestrians?
Section F
The addition of segregated one-way cycle tracks to this part of Dewsbury Road is something we welcome, as this will provide better connections into the surrounding streets than a bidirectional path. This plan will tie in well with the upcoming active travel scheme in Beeston. We would urge the council to carry on beyond the White Rose Roundabout so that the cycle lanes can be used to travel safely and conveniently to Elliot Hudson College, Millshaw Park Industrial Estate and the future White Rose Train Station.
Section F3 shows that the connection to City Connect 3 when travelling east along Dewsbury Road is shared use across the Tommy Wass junction, starting with a parallel crossing that meets a shared space island of CS3. The proposals at this junction are wholly unsatisfactory and require complex, multi-stage movements. This junction should be looked at again, with the focus being on directness and simplicity for all users, and less on capacity for motor vehicles.
We feel that efforts should be made to better link with the upcoming Beeston Active Travel Neighbourhood as this will possibly be made permanent by the time this scheme starts construction in 2022. The planned indirectness and distance of the route between these schemes will tempt cyclists to chance a dangerous crossing of Old Lane on the carriageway. We understand that this is a recent issue which has arisen after these plans were created but nevertheless, it is possible to design out these future issues by incorporating a crossing on the North Side of the Tommy Wass junction to connect up with CS3 and the Beeston Low Traffic Neighbourhood.
Could we get an assurance that measures are being taken at the parking laybys, such as in section F2, to prevent collisions between cyclists and vehicle doors?
Cycle Parking
- There are on the consultation documents for where is intended to go, we understand that the consultation is at an early stage and would like to take the opportunity to suggest a number of locations which should feature Sheffield Stands as a minimum.Our suggested locations are:
- As more people start to choose cycling as a method of travel, non-standard cycles such as cargo bikes and trikes are becoming more and more popular. We would like to know that provisions are being made to accommodate non-standard cycles where possible?