Previous Reference: Executive, Minute 35 (2016/17)

 

At the meeting of the Executive held on 20 September 2016, the CityConnect 2, Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway Scheme was considered and the principles were approved.

 

The scheme, in order to be implemented, requires changes to be made to the way in which the highways along the route are used.

 

The Executive authorised the Strategic Director, place, among other things, to process and advertise any traffic regulation orders that were necessary and it was decided that any valid objections were to be submitted to the Executive or this Area Committee, as appropriate for consideration.

 

Accordingly, the Strategic Director, Place will now present Document “D” which considers objections to the recently advertised (moving traffic) Traffic Regulation Order and to the (waiting, loading and parking) Traffic Regulation Order. The report identifies factors and options to be considered and makes the following recommendations.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)          That the objections be overruled and the (moving traffic) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised.

 

(2)          That the objections be overruled and the (waiting loading and parking) Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as advertised.

 

(3)          That the objectors be informed accordingly.

 

(Regeneration and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

 

(Chris Bedford – 01274 437645)

Previous Reference: Executive, Minute 35 (2016/17)

 

At the meeting of the Executive held on 20 September 2016, the CityConnect 2, Bradford Canal Road Corridor Cycleway Scheme was considered and the principles were approved.

 

The scheme, in order to be implemented, required changes to be made to the way in which the highways along the route were used.

 

The Executive authorised the Strategic Director, place, among other things, to process and advertise any traffic regulation orders that were necessary and it was decided that any valid objections were to be submitted to the Executive or this Area Committee, as appropriate for consideration.

 

Accordingly, the Strategic Director, Place presented Document “D” which considered objections to the recently advertised (moving traffic) Traffic Regulation Order and to the (waiting, loading and parking) Traffic Regulation Order. The report identified factors and options to be considered.

 

The Principal Engineer, Design and Construction informed Members that three objections had been received, one to the TRO regarding prohibiting vehicles turning from Queens Road into Valley Road, prohibiting entry from Queens Road into Valley Road and restricting the one-way flow of traffic to a northerly direction on Valley Road.

 

The remaining two objections were to the “no waiting and no loading/unloading at any time” along the full length of the Cycle Superhighway comprising lengths of Hillam Road, Valley Road, Bolton Lane, Queens Road, Canal Road, Stanley Road and Lower Kirkgate, Bradford.

 

It was reported that prior to advertising the Orders a consultation exercise was held.  Businesses were contacted and offered individual meetings to discuss any issues and concerns.  Not all businesses took up that offer and some that did were not satisfied with the outcome.  Others did engage in those meetings and where it was possible to make design modifications to the scheme then those businesses had been satisfied with the proposed Orders.

 

Members were informed that consideration had been given to amending the TRO in order to reduce the length of the restriction for one-way traffic flow on Valley Road.  The aim would prevent vehicles entering Valley Road from Queens Road whilst still allowing two way flow of traffic along the rest of Valley Road for local traffic between business premises.  Traffic could still enter Valley Road from the south only but would be able to leave in either direction.  The carriageway would be widened to enable a car and a LGV to pass each other and some passing places could be provided to enable two LGV’s to pass.  However, this option would result in the cycle track width being less than the recommended width for a two-way cycle track and would compromise safety for cyclists.  A high wall on one side and moving traffic on the other side would increase the danger to cyclists as the risk of cyclists catching their handlebars on the wall or with another cyclist whilst shying away from the edge of the cycle track nearest to passing motor traffic.  This option would therefore not be recommended.

 

It was reported that consideration had also been given to acquiring some land between Valley Road and the railway in order to build the cycle track away from Valley Road.  The price being sought for the land, the high cost of enabling works and the timescale necessary to carry out the procedures required by Network Rail regarding acquiring land from them and working in close proximity to the railway was beyond the scope of this project.  This, therefore was not a feasible option.

 

Members were informed that consideration had also been given to an alternative route via Midland Road and Hamm Strasse.  This route would introduce a steep hill in an otherwise level route and a segregated cycle track along Hamm Strasse would require space to be taken from the carriageway thereby reducing the capacity of this major road.  The higher level of air pollution along Hamm Strasse would be a concern for cyclists health.  This route, therefore, was not considered to be a feasible option.

 

It was reported that consideration had been given to the possibility of an alternative route along Canal Road.  Although this route was level a segregated cycle track would require space to be taken from the carriageway thereby reducing the capacity of this major road.  Feasible solutions for crossing side roads and accesses had not been found and the higher level of air pollution along this major road would be a concern for cyclists’ health.  For comparison, Canal Road carried 35,000 v.p.d. (vehicles per day) whereas Valley Road carried 3,000 v.p.d.  This route was therefore not considered to be a feasible option.

 

Members were informed that the CityConnect Advisory Group which comprises mainly cyclists experienced in similar schemes had commented and provided advice throughout the scheme development process.  The group support the current scheme proposals and the advertised TRO’s.

 

It was reported that the proposed scheme provided a segregated continuous cycleway between Bradford and Shipley which allowed families to cycle along the route.  Turning it into a lesser scheme would be a blow to cyclists.  The needs of businesses were understood but the wider cycling strategy for the District and the benefits to health needed looking at.

 

A representative of Bspoke representing cyclists spoke in support of the proposed scheme; she reported that she was on the City Connect Advisory Board and reported that a lot of cyclists were involved in the plans; she reported that families would be able to cycle from Shipley to Bradford in safety.

 

A representative of Uriah Woodhead spoke in objection to the scheme and thanked Members for considering the additional letter submitted by Uriah Woodhead and stressed that the proposals did not address the issues for the business in that; 80% of suppliers entered from Queens Road; it was a 150 year old family run business and was the first building merchants when it opened but had many competitors now; proceeding with the TRO’s would put the company at serious disadvantage; no account had been taken of the issues facing the company should the proposal proceed which were outlined in the objection letter at paragraph 6 onwards; creating new road restrictions would be to the detriment of an established local business.

 

Members commented on a number of issues which included:

 

·                    Why did the scheme cost so much?

·                    Motorists would find the scheme confusing, some lengths of the road were one way and some were two way.

·                    How were businesses consulted?

·                    How were the public consulted?  How were employees of businesses in the area consulted?

·                    Members had discussed the proposed scheme with local businesses and people were not as satisfied as officers were saying; where were the consultation exhibitions?

·                    How would employees of business such as Tesco attend exhibitions at Gaisby Lane at lunch time?

·                    How many letters had been received back from the consultation?

·                    Who owned the stone wall on Valley Road?

·                    Concerns were raised about the condition of the dry stone wall and who had responsibility to keep it maintained; the land on the other side of the dry stone wall would be more suitable for the scheme; needed to explore whether that piece of land could be purchased which would then be an attractive green cycle path rather than something that sits alongside a crumbling wall on the side and HGV’s on the other.

·                    Scheme being proposed was not one which a lot of people liked and did not have a lot of public support.

·                    Would the proposed scheme engage people to cycle?

·                    It was felt that the route had been chosen because it was there and not because it was ideal.

·                    Alternative routes should be looked at; look at the opportunity of doing something similar to the Greenway cycle path which was an attractive cycle route.

·                    Welcomed a cycle scheme but concerned about the implications to businesses of the current scheme.

 

In response to Members’ questions it was reported that:

 

·                    Costs of the scheme included the installation of new traffic signals and pedestrian/cycle crossing facilities at several road junctions; new kerb lines to construct a segregated two way cycleway, traffic management etc..

·                    The two way cycle track was clearly identified; there was a demarcation similar to the cycle superhighway that goes from Bradford to Leeds; some safety issues that had been raised on that scheme had resulted in design amendments to include additional lining and signing.

·                    As many businesses as possible were contacted by letter, and where requested, visits had been made to discuss the proposals; some businesses did not make any contact; public consultation exercise was held; examined consultation comments and modified designs where it could be revised.

·                    Members of the public generally supported the scheme.

·                    The exhibition was at a Community Hall at Gaisby Lane.

·                    3,000 consultation letters were sent as well as press notices and notices advertised on streets associated with the TRO’s.

·                    Consultation feedback was managed by an outside organisation, the consultation report was written and available.

·                    The dry stone wall on Valley Road was in private ownership; some parts of the wall needed repair.

·                    The land adjacent to the stone wall on Valley Road was either in private ownership or belonged to Network Rail; the business owner of the land had been approached and the Council were informed that the owner would sell the whole of the land and not a piece of it and this would be extremely costly and there was not sufficient time to progress such a scheme; the funding would be lost if not spent by 31 March 2018.

·                    Cycle paths on Canal Road itself would not attract cyclists due to the high volume of traffic on that road.

 

A Member of the Committee who was also the Council’s Cycling Champion stressed that he understood the reservations to the scheme but expressed strong support for it. He felt the scheme proposed was the most suitable option and officers were working with businesses; as a cyclist he would use the route proposed; the Council had been working hard to encourage businesses to persuade their employees to cycle to work; part of the project was to engage with businesses and schools to encourage cycling.

 

Resolved-

 

(1)          That the Committee recognises and welcomes the Cycle link.

 

(2)          That the Committee is not content that the solution offered is a safer, more attractive urban environment that will make the positive contribution to Bradford’s Cycling ambition. The Committee also recognises the challenges of the current site.

 

(3)          That Officers are asked to fully investigate an alternative scheme in the urban green space along side Valley Road, Bradford.

 

(4)          That the consultation be extended to include people who work along Valley Road, Bradford and whether they had access to Cycle to Work Scheme.

 

(5)          That the decision to overrule the objections be delayed until the above work is undertaken and presented to the Committee.

 

Action:           Strategic Director, Place

 

(Regeneration and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee)