Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members present were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. 

Councillor Merrett declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 4 (Water End/Clifton Green Junction: Options for Reinstating a Separate Left Turn Traffic Lane on the Water End Approach) in so far as it referred to cycling issues, as a member of the York Cycle Campaign and Honorary Member of the Cycling Touring Club.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last City Strategy Decision Session held on 26 July 2011.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the last Decision Session – Cabinet Member for City Strategy, held on 26 July 2011 be approved and signed by the Cabinet Member as a correct record.

It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.  The Cabinet Member also granted two requests to speak from Council members. Councillor Potter’s apologies that she was not able to be present at the meeting were noted.

The representations were in respect of agenda item 4 (Water End/Clifton Green Junction: Options for reinstating a separate left turn traffic lane).

A representative from Cycle Touring Club North Yorkshire spoke in support of the officer recommendation to retain the existing arrangement.  He stated that there would be significant engineering concerns and major safety risks to cyclists if the existing layout were to be amended and that it would encourage greater car use and discourage cycling.

A resident put forward comments of people living in Westminster Road.  He gave details of the problems that residents were experiencing and the impact that the increased volume of traffic was having on their quality of life.  He urged that further work on traffic flow be carried out.

Councillor Healey stated that he was speaking on behalf of Councillor Watt.  He stated that he was in agreement with the recommendations detailed in paragraph 64 of the report.  Referring to the hierarchy that was in place in the city and which gave priority to pedestrians, he commented that more should be done to measure the impact that improving provision for one type of travel, for example cycling, had on others.  Whilst is was important to increase cycling, this had been achieved at great inconvenience to those who travelled by car.

Councillor Scott stated that he had raised concerns in October 2008 as to the impact that the scheme would have on residents of Westminster Road.  He drew attention to the scrutiny review that had taken place on this issue and stated that the reinstatement of the left-hand lane had been an election commitment for Clifton Ward.  Councillor Scott  stated that Option 1 was the preferred option and it was vital that the traffic refuge island was retained.  Local residents had been blighted by the scheme and it was important that issues in respect of the reinstatement of the left-hand lane and a point closure were addressed.

This report discusses the possible reinstatement of two traffic lanes on the Water End approach to the Clifton Green signals, as were in place before the cycling facilities were introduced. The physical constraints of the site are outlined and various options for reinstating a dedicated left turn traffic lane are developed and discussed. Since most options involve the removal of the existing on-road cycle lane, the report also includes ideas and proposals for alternative ways of facilitating cyclist movements between Water End and Water Lane. The report also includes some other ideas for altering the way the Clifton Green signals operate, with a view to increasing capacity and reducing traffic delays.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the contents of the report be noted.

(ii)      That consultation take place with local

residents and interest groups regarding Option 1 (retaining both the cycle track build-out and the splitter island) and Option 5 (introducing a central cycle feeder lane between two traffic lanes whilst retaining the splitter island).

(iii)     That, as part of the consultation in respect of Option 1, views be sought as to whether the cobbles should be removed to provide extra carriageway width.

(iv)     That an area-wide review of signal timings for weekdays and weekends be undertaken. (Measure A - as detailed in paragraph 60 of the report) 

REASON:            To balance various advantages and disadvantages linked to the options, with a view to achieving the best overall solution.

Consideration was given to a report that discussed the possible reinstatement of two traffic lanes on the Water End approach to the Clifton Green signals, as were in place before the cycling facilities were introduced.  The physical constraints of the site were outlined in the report and various options for reinstating a dedicated left turn traffic lane were developed and discussed.  Since most options involved the removal of the existing on-road cycle lane, the report also included ideas and proposals for alternative ways of facilitating cyclist movements between Water End and Water Lane.  The report also included ideas for altering the way the Clifton Green signals operated, with a view to increasing capacity and reducing traffic delays.

The Cabinet Member gave consideration to the following options:

Option 1:    retaining both the cycle track build-out and the splitter island, as shown in Annex D of the report

Option 2:    retaining the cycle track build-out, but removing the splitter island, as shown in Annex E of the report

Option 3:    removing the cycle track build-out, but retaining the splitter island, as shown in Annex F of the report

Option 4:    removing both the cycle track build-out and the splitter island, as shown in Annex G of the report

Option 5:    introducing a central cycle feeder lane between two traffic lanes, as shown in Annex H of the report, retaining the splitter island

Option 6:    introducing a central cycle feeder lane between two traffic lanes, as shown in Annex C of the report, with the splitter island removed

Option 7:    retaining the existing layout, as shown in Annex B of the report

The Cabinet Member commented on the commitment that had been given to reinstate the left turn at the junction and stated that it was also essential that the island was retained.

The Cabinet Member stated that he had asked officers to look into the practicalities, costs and knock-on implications of a point closure on Westminster Road/The Avenue but that these measures would require consensus.  The gathering of this information should not be seen as a commitment to implementing such changes.  The Cabinet Member also drew attention to the much smaller capital programme and the resulting implications for such schemes.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the contents of the report be noted.

(ii)      That consultation take place with local

residents and interest groups regarding Option 1 (retaining both the cycle track build-out and the splitter island) and Option 5 (introducing a central cycle feeder lane between two traffic lanes whilst retaining the splitter island).

(iii)     That, as part of the consultation in respect of Option 1, views be sought as to whether the cobbles should be removed to provide extra carriageway width.

(iv)     That an area-wide review of signal timings for weekdays and weekends be undertaken. (Measure A - as detailed in paragraph 60 of the report) 

(v)     That the possibility of the introduction of a point closure on Westminster Road/The Avenue be investigated.

REASON:            To balance various advantages and disadvantages linked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.