This document is also available in Braille, large print, on tape and on computer disc.
Contact Mark Robinson tel. 0113 3951470 for copies.
LEEDS CYCLING CONSULTATION FORUM
6.15pm Wednesday 25th April 2007
Tim Parry
Mark Robinson
Kasia Speakman
Ray Hill
Tim Walker
Gordon White
Gordon Maclay
NOTES OF MEETING
Transport Strategy
Philip Purkis
Cycling, Transport Strategy
Stephen Hammond
Cycling, Transport Strategy
Steffi Hasse
Travelwise, Transport Strategy
Andy Beck
Travelwise, Transport Strategy
Jane Kingswood
CTC, LCAG
Robert Ibberson
Travelwise, Transport Strategy
Dave Stevens
CTC / LCAG / Sustrans
LCAG
UOL
LCAG / CTC
LCTG/Sustrans
Sustrans
The Cycling Consultation Forum is a forum for discussion of matters related to cycling in Leeds.
It is open to interested members of the public and is attended by elected members and officers of
Leeds City Council. It does not replace or supersede other consultation processes operated by
the Council.
1.0
1.1
Apologies
Cllr. Andrew and Cllr. Harington, Malcolm Dawson, David Hall, Ron Dewhurst,
Katherine Lofthouse
2.0
Minutes of Meeting of 10th January 2007
2.1
Para 3.3 Mark Robinson had received a factual correction from the Traffic Section:
Traffic have stated that no scheme has been carried out at Bainbrigge Road (banning
right turn or other) not because of its low priority, but because of the likely detrimental
consequences for traffic in the area.
2.2
Minutes of the previous meeting were otherwise agreed to be a true record.
3.0
Matters Arising
3.1
Tim Parry explained that the Cookridge Street feasibility scheme was ongoing.
3.2
TP reported that the Wetherby – Thorp Arch cycleway was complete and would be
officially opened on 21st June.
3.3
MR had been advised that a closure of Bainbrigge Road Junction would have a
knock-on effect on local traffic, potentially increasing congestion in Headingley. The
Traffic section’s view was that the accident problems for cyclists there resulted from
the cycle lane allowing cyclists to overtake cars at speed on the inside – these were
then not seen by vehicles turning right across the box junction. Stephen Hammond did
not regard this as acceptable, and requested that the issue be monitored. Stephen H.
asked for up-to-date accidents statistics, and reported that the box was no longer
visible as the yellow paint had worn off. TP offered to invite Dave Sherburn, the Road
Safety Manager, to the next meeting to address the accidents issue. He would also
ask for the yellow lines to be renewed.
3.4
Stephen H. referred to a suggestion to invite someone from UTC to discuss issues
raised at the January meeting. MR replied that no specific questions to the UTC had
been received. Dave Stevens thought current policies (which gave priority to
motorised traffic) needed to be challenged. TP replied that the UTC Engineer would
be pleased to come and discuss this if enough interest was shown.
1
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
MR/
TP
MR
3.5
Para 3.12 TP reported on progress with cycle parking provision at Leeds Station. In
the view of the station deputy manager, cycle lockers were not favoured because they
required intensive management, although they were not prohibited by security. Cycle
parking at the short stay car park would form part of a feasibility study. Increase in
cycle parking on platform 1 was impossible due to the location of advertising posters,
which apparently could not be changed. However, an adjustment to the toast rack
stands to accommodate 2 cycles per stand would be investigated. Provision of cycle
parking on other platforms was deemed impossible, along with expanding cycle
parking in the bus interchange. The disabled loading area could not accommodate
more stands as it was required by carers and larger wheelchairs. TP quoted an email
from Metro to Northern Rail asking for a cost estimate for adjusting the stands on
platform 1, and advising that management of lockers would not be difficult. Andy Beck
mentioned the space at the back of the bus interchange area. TP replied that in the
evening the area fills up with taxi queues, and the spaces at the back of the roofed
area were outside CCTV coverage. Dave S replied that the taxi queue ran at the back
of the benches, but it was meant to go through the middle of the roofed area, which
would create more room. Ray Hill mentioned that New Station Street (and the bus
interchange) may not be in ownership of the station, but in control of Metro and the
Highway authority. TP/KS to investigate.
3.6
Para 3.8. MR had a response from Traffic Management regarding the TRO on
Bennett Road. This involved replacing double yellow lines with a single yellow line at
the cycle cut- through. Objections had been overruled by the director and none related
to Bennett Road. The TRO could not be changed at this stage. Stephen H. had
written on the issue to Councillor Martin and explained that he had objected
specifically to the TRO at Bennett Road. MR added that a white line scheme could be
possible and would investigate. Stephen H asked about the café sign obstructing the
cut-through. KS replied that the sign was no longer there, therefore no further action
was taken.
3.7
Para 3.9. Stephen H referred to road safety of children cycling to school, mentioned in
previous meeting by Cllr Andrew. Important issues included intimidation of children on
the way to school and the proportions of children wishing to cycle to school to those
who actually did. Stephen H asked for a joint a meeting with all relevant partners to
consider cycling, environmental and health strategies.
3.8
Section 6. Stephen H asked about EASEL cycling proposals. MR replied that he had a
meeting with Cllr Harington regarding this, and that there were no other comments.
4.0
Connect2 Funding Bid, Roundhay Park to Rothwell (Wyke Beck Way)
4.1
Dave Stevens (Sustrans) – Connect 2 is a Sustrans’ bid to the Big Lottery for Living
Landmarks. A £50m budget is available over a 5 year period, which would be
allocated on national TV by public vote. Sustrans’ Connect2 was among 6 shortlisted
projects. The bid was intended for 50 projects - Sustrans had received 450
schemes;125 of these were longlisted. These were all good projects, but money
constraints made it impossible to include all. Shortlisting was intended to “weed out”
projects that Sustrans felt would not happen, but has only filtered out 30 projects. The
Bristol office put the bid package together; this resulted in a short-list of 79 projects
and a reserve list of 20; the latter included Leeds’ Wykebeck Way. The expectation
was that some of the shortlisted projects may fall out. Sustrans aimed to achieve
national balance in scheme type and location.
4.2
TP distributed the Wykebeck Way map. The partially built scheme connected parks,
schools, housing, shops and workplaces. LCC had bid for further £400K from
Sustrans, to complete the scheme.
2
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
TP/
KS
MR
5.0
ULTIMAT (University of Leeds TIMe for Active Travel) Bid
5.1
MR explained that this was another Lottery bid - a joint project with the University of
Leeds, Leeds City Council and Sustrans, aimed at encouraging staff and students to
cycle, walk and travel by bus to university. The bid was to buy cycles for student hire
with an option to buy, plus technical support. A full-time cycle promotion post would
also be created. LCC’s input would be the review of all routes to universities and halls
of residence, including the A660. The outcome of the bid should be known in the next
few months.
5.2
Steffi Hasse confirmed LMU’s involvement, along with other colleges. Philip Purkis
asked about accessibility of university grounds to cyclists as an alternative to the
A660. Steffi H. replied that as part of the project there would be a safety audit and a
feasibility study for security of public access. Steffi H had no objections to signing the
route through the campus, provided that the route did not go through pedestrian
areas. MR concluded by saying that the scheme will provide an opportunity to
concentrate on issues, particularly on the A660, and to bring in people from UTC and
Traffic.
6.0
Cycle network review and proposals – taken out of order
6.1
TP distributed the list of schemes undertaken in 2006/7along with the route map
These were mostly infrastructure schemes, and included:
1. Schemes taken to design stage:
 Rothwell, Bramley Garforth and Scholes to City Centre Routes, the Inter Canal
Link, Cookridge Street Contraflow, A647 Pegasus and links to Boat Lane and
Yeadon – Guiseley cycleway,
2. Completed schemes, or those at construction stage:
 Neville Hill Sidings Access Control Improvement and Clean Up (Groundwork),
Wyke Beck Way (Killingbeck section under construction), Halton Moor Cycle
Link and Wetherby – Thorp Arch
3. Feasibility studies: Cross Gates to Wetherby cycle route, and detailed
assessments of cycle requirements for Beeston and Holbeck, EASEL and Little
London. LCC was also funding a feasibility study in to movement and circulation in
the Kirkstall Valley Park.
4. Other schemes: the Leeds Cycle Map, new cycle parking installed at 6 sites, new
procedures for cycle parking.
6.2
Completed major highway schemes which included cycling measures:



6.3
Inner Ring Road Stage 7 - provision of toucans, pedestrian/ cyclist bridge and
shared use footway
Abbey Road QBI – bus and cycle lanes on A65 (Kirkstall Lane –Horsforth)
East Leeds Link Road – cycle tracks, lanes, crossings and cut-throughs
The following major highway schemes were pending construction: Burley Road QBI,
Chapletown Road (bus and cycle lanes cut-throughs), Holbeck Urban Village,
Roundhay Road HOV, cycle lane and improved ASLs, A1(M) Bramham to Wetherby,
with lengths of non-motorised user routes.
3
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
6.4
TP explained that an innovative scheme was taking place in Holbeck Urban Village,
involving use of unusual road materials in an urban village setting. A trial section of
road would be open for 1 year and members of the public could comment on these. A
presentation to the Forum was suggested.
6.5
Major development audit was another area of involvement, including requests for
provision of cycling facilities funded by developers as part of planning application
requirements. 06/07 audits included: Black Bull Street, Leeds Valley Park, Whitehall
Road, Braimes Press, Wellington Place, Woodhouse Lane (this will include a new
section of cycle track), Woodside Quarry, Capitol Park and Thorp Park. Developments
also included making the High Royds Hospital junction more cycle friendly, and
integrating the site with the existing bridleway network and with Sustrans route to
Addingham.
6.6
The team also commented on traffic calming and white lining proposals if they
involved cycling infrastructure or were likely to have an impact on cyclists. These
included: Butcher Hill Traffic Calming (to be implemented soon), Harehills 20 mph
zone, A61 Leeds Road/Copley Road junction (included contra flow), A660 Otley Road
Toucan Crossing, Gipton Approach (cycle lanes), Clay Pit Lane, St James’ Street/
Beckett Street junction (ASLs and Toucan), St Matthew’s Street cut-through and
Kirkstall Forge.
6.7
KS explained that the cycling team had been consulted on the St Matthew’s Street
build-out and mini roundabout proposals, and suggested alterations to the build out.
However, she had been unable to obtain finalised drawings of the scheme and
confirm whether these comments were acted upon.
6.8
TP said that LCC also provided cycling training through Road Safety in over 150
schools. A Physical Activity Strategy was being developed, involving sport as well as
active travel There is also a Child and Obesity Strategy offering scope to include
active travel.
6.9
TP drew attention to the Pegasus crossing on the A647 near Dawson’s Corner.
Although not a cycling scheme, it would link an important long distance equestrian
route running ultimately from Ilkley Moor to Spen Valley, which will be accessible to
cyclists.
6.10
Proposals for 2007/8 with LCC involvement, were: an Outline Design for routes from
Allwoodley to City Centre and for A64 York Road; the implementation of the following
routes: Rothwell, Bramley, Garforth and Scholes to City Centre, Yeadon – Guiseley
and the Inter Canal Link; Kirkstall Valley Park routes feasibility study (Leeds
Metropolitan University) 6 new Safe Routes to School, ULTIMAT, West Yorkshire
Leisure Cycling Map, Wetherby – Thorp Arch map, and updates to the cycling pages
on the LCC website.
6.11
Robert Ibberson asked about the yellow lines on the strategic cycle network map, and
noted that one of these followed the Ring Road. TP explained these were not
necessarily currently easy routes to follow, but rather roads that were of interest for
cycling, reflecting desire lines.
6.12
TP added that a public inquiry had been held on the A1(M) Bramham to Wetherby
upgrade, which recommended inclusion of cycling facilities in the scheme that had
been disputed. Input from this meeting was represented at the Inquiry. Cyclists
present wished to thank Ian Haigh, Roger Brookes TP and other officers for their
input.
6.13
TP said that Richard Peace was helping to prepare a leisure cycling map for West
4
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
Yorks, and needed ideas for routes. This would be a valuable resource to leisure
cyclists as Leeds Cycle Map did not cover rural areas on the outskirts of the
Metropolitan area.
6.14
6.15
Andy B asked about policies and strategies informing work [on cycle routes]. TP
replied that the targets are not defined any more in terms of the length of cycle routes,
but in increasing the levels of cycling. The targets were 10% increase in overall levels,
and 20% for the city centre – the latter had already been achieved and exceeded.
Access to canal towpath: MR said that the issues with crossing at Neville Street would
be resolved through the Inter Canal Link (now in design stage). Asda had given their
agreement for the cycleway to run on the waterfront.
6.16
Stephen H asked how many schools would have safe routes to school by end of next
year. MR replied that the cycling team had been asked to look at 6 schools, but that
many more safe routes to school were created by other general traffic schemes, such
as 20 MPH zones. Safe routes to schools were also included in the EASEL project –
covering a third of Leeds, and as part of the Yeadon – Guiseley cycleway scheme.
6.17
Stephen H asked about any schemes suggested by councillors. MR replied that Otley
councillors had requested cycling provision on the A660 in Otley, and a potential route
along Gledhow Valley Road was also suggested by local ward members.
6.18
Robert Ibberson asked if this meant that cyclists would be able to use the pavement
along the A660 near Otley. MR replied that Otley Partnership were asking for cycling
to be enabled along the pavement, but the width of the pavement is below the
guidance. The proposal would progress only if it had comprehensive support.
7.0
Cycle lanes or Tracks – discussion
7.1
TP explained that there had been an e-mail petition regarding cycle lanes and tracks,
calling for various improvements including “cycling super highways”. TP outlined the
general approach to improving infrastructure for cycling in Leeds. The first step was
to look at arrangements to reduce speed and traffic (as advised in Cycle Friendly
Infrastructure). Infrastructure for cyclists on carriageway, such as cycle lanes and
“invisible” infrastructure (wider inside lanes ) were then considered. Conversion of
footways, i.e. pavements alongside carriageways, was considered only as a last
resort. Off-highway cycle tracks (or those within the highway but separate to footway
or carriageway) could be a good solution, but depended on availability of land and
issues such as the number of roads to be crossed. Although land for such routes
was rarely available in urban areas, some routes had been progressed. A network of
radial routes was being developed; this network used a mix of on- and off
highway/carriageway arrangements in order to provide continuity.
7.2
Robert I. highlighted the difficulty that cyclists have in exiting the canal at Rawdon,
and asked about converting the footway to shared use, given low pedestrian numbers.
TP was familiar with the site, but was worried about converting the footway due to
pedestrian/ disabled group pressure. Stephen H. thought that shared footways would
increase pressure to put all cyclists on cycle tracks – this would have implications in
terms of speed of travel and convenience. Philip pointed out that cyclists were hassled
on roads already, and that many cyclists preferred to be segregated.
7.3
Robert I. argued for the use of footways on uphill sections, where cyclist speed was
much slower than traffic. Andy B suggested the use of the pavement on one side of
the road as a footway, with the uphill section on the opposite side reserved for cycles
only as a solution on the Apperly Bridge – Bradford stretch. TP agreed that difficult
sections should be looked at.
5
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
8.0
AOB
8.1
Steffi H questioned the location of cycle stands next to railings, and asked about
conversion of railings into cycle stands. TP replied that, outside the city centre, cycles
were often locked to guard rails. Steffi H asked about statistics on cycle thefts at cycle
stands, and TP would ask the Police for these. Robert remarked that Police statistics
may be skewed by nefarious reports of theft for insurance.
8.2
Regarding Veló proposals, TP explained that Veló was not a cycle hire, but a network
of available bike stations in the city, where you could release a bike with a special
credit card, and return it at another station. Bikes were custom made of non-standard
parts, and effectively free to hire (in Lyon); although a substantial deposit was
required, there was no hire fee for the first half hour. Lyon, Olso, Paris and Brussels
either had Veló, or would soon have it. The project was heavily reliant on advertising
revenue. When LCC was approached by an advertising company regarding Veló, the
company either required access to street advertising or would require a prohibitive
fee. There was the matter of transparency as advertising had to be part of a separate
bid. Philip Purkis noted that there seemed to be no advertising on the streets of Oslo,
and that bikes carried all the adverts.
8.3
TP also urged cyclists to participate in the round of consultations on the City Centre
Action Plan taking place, available on the Leeds website.
8.4
Philip P. mentioned that he had been invited to attend the Inner North West Planning
Committee in mid May, to talk about cycle facilities on the A660.
9.0
The Bike Week
9.1
RH said that Bike Week programme would be following the formula of previous
years. Tim Walker (on a student placement) had the role of the Bike Week
coordinator. TW gave the programme overview: Bike Week would take place
between 16th and 24th of June, with over 25 events planned. There would be three
Council events, including bike to work, cycle trail quest, a buffet and a picnic and
Horsforth Sports day with Dr Bike. Cycling ambulance was to be contacted, and
school events confirmed, to coincide with Wetherby – Thorp Arch opening.
9.2
The Bike Week would be promoted through posters, articles in Primary Times and
Small Talk, adverts on the City screen, and leaflets. Website listings were to be
updated regularly. RH said that there was still room for more events. Andy B informed
about a space in marquee in Horsforth available [Sue to be contacted].
9.3
RH advised that the events organisers would distribute the leaflets to their contacts,
with the main outlet for leaflets being Gateway Yorkshire. Leaflets would also be
distributed through libraries, doctors surgeries, leisure centres and business contacts
(150 in total) but not through schools. .
10.0
Date of Next Meeting : TBC
Contact for queries etc:
Tim Parry or Mark Robinson, Development Department
The Leonardo Building, 2 Rossington Street, LEEDS, LS2 8HB
Tel: 0113 2476385 or 3951470
E-mail: tim.parry@leeds.gov.uk or mark.x.robinson@leeds.gov.uk
6
Cycling/Ccm/106736424
TP
RH