Executive Member Decision Session


18 January 2022

Report of the Director of Transport, Environment and Planning

Portfolio of the Executive Member for Transport



1.        This report provides further information on the Tadcaster Road Sustainable Transport Scheme as requested at the Executive Member Decision Session in October 2021.  It sets out:

§  The elements of the scheme to be delivered as part of the forthcoming Highways maintenance scheme in 2022/23

§  The elements of the scheme about which further work needs to take place before a decision can be made about their inclusion in the detailed work programme for the Tadcaster Road scheme

2.        Where further work is required, the report sets out how this will take place and whether there is a need for further public engagement and consultation.


3.        The Executive Member accepts the approach which is set out in this report for each location.

Reason: This will allow timely specification and delivery of the Sustainable Transport Scheme for Tadcaster Road.



4.        At the Executive Member Decision Session (EMDS) on 19th October 2021 it was resolved that, whilst the Tadcaster Road Sustainable Transport scheme could be approved in outline, a report would be produced for the Executive Member for Transport which set out the priorities in delivering the scheme (decision 6.iv).  This report fulfils that purpose.

5.        The key objective of the October EMDS was, as far as possible, to provide continuous cycle lanes along Tadcaster Road (whilst also improving – or at least not worsening – conditions for bus services) and, in doing so, set the kerblines for the sustainable transport elements of the scheme so that it could go forward to business case development and to be incorporated into the Procurement Schedule for the Highways Maintenance Scheme (HMS).  Following the October EMDS, a large extent of the design for Tadcaster Road was confirmed (except for some detail questions around the type of light segregation provided, and some road markings). This left details to be refined around the design in the following locations:

1.        A short section of walk/ cycle path near to the junction between Knavesmire Road and Tadcaster Road

2.        The section between the pedestrian crossing west of Pulleyn Drive and Nelson’s Lane, where Tadcaster Road is not wide enough to allow LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lanes on both sides of the road;

3.        Detail, including the location of the inbound bus stop and pedestrian crossing, around the Slingsby Grove shopping area

4.        Moor Lane roundabout

5.        The section between Moor Lane Roundabout and the Sim Balk Lane junction/ Cemetery Corner

6.        The approach to be taken for the various stretches of light segregation that would be used along the corridor.

6.        Since the EMDS there has been significant additional design work, including more general work refining and costing the designs put forward in October.  There has also been some engagement with local stakeholders in the Slingsby Grove area.  The project has advanced substantially, so this report is also an opportunity to report on this progress and the implications of the costings work.  Annex A shows the areas where the design is fixed, and where further work is required.


Location 1 - Cycle/ footpath adjacent to Knavesmire Rd

7.        Currently the cycle/ footpath at this location is narrowed because of trees at this location. To achieve a wider path at this location will require the boundary fence of the Knavesmire to be relocated and potentially the removal of a small tree, which will be replaced like for like on the Knavesmire. Further development work will need to be undertaken to finalise the layout and ensure no conflict with the special regulations around the Knavesmire as a city stray. It is proposed that the final decision on the layout is delegated to the Director of Transport Environment and Planning in consultation with the Executive Member for Transport.

8.        Subject to that approval it is proposed that this change is progressed as part of the Highways Maintenance Scheme (HMS).

Location 2 - Pulleyn Drive to Nelson’s Lane provision for cyclists

9.        As noted in October, it is not possible to provide LTN 1/20 compliant cycle lanes in both directions, alongside a carriageway width of 3m on the section of Tadcaster Road between the pedestrian crossing west of Pulleyn Drive and the junction with Nelson’s Lane.  This is because the narrowest section of Tadcaster Road here is only 8.3m wide, with mature trees in the margin on both sides of the road making it impossible to widen Tadcaster Road without loss of the trees.  To provide LTN1/20 compliant cycle lanes and 3m carriageway widths Tadcaster Road would need to be at least 9m wide (which is achieved elsewhere).  This leaves the following options for the narrow stretch:

§     Option 2A - Substandard cycle lanes (<1.5m width) could be provided in both directions on Tadcaster Road

§     Option 2B - An LTN1/20 compliant lane, with a width of 1.5m, could be provided in one direction, with large cycle roundel symbols used to denote the presence of cyclists on the carriageway in the other direction

§     Option 2C - An LTN 1/20 compliant lane could be provided in the northbound (inbound) direction, with the southbound (outbound) direction provided with an off-road lane created by moving the existing Knavesmire fenceline approximately 2.0m into the Knavesmire to provide a 2.0m wide cycle lane off carriageway plus a 2.0m footway.

§     Option 2D – operating Tadcaster Road on a one-way shuttle basis – for the short stretch where it is too narrow by providing cycle lanes on both sides of the road by deleting the centre line.

10.    Cost estimates by the Tadcaster Rd design consultant (Aecom) indicate that the cost of Option 2C would be approximately £350,000 whilst the other options would be effectively zero cost because they require only signing/ lining, which is required in any case as part of the maintenance scheme.

11.    There is insufficient budget available within the Sustainable Transport Scheme to fund the £350,000 cost of the segregated path, and there are also unresolved issues around the amenity of providing the off-road lane by widening into the Knavesmire, and there are special considerations around construction on the city’s strays.  Consequently it is recommended that this option is discounted for inclusion in this scheme, but is considered for inclusion within York’s emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), with further technical work undertaken on feasibility to inform its priority in the list of LCWIP schemes.

12.    Option 2D is rejected as Tadcaster Road is significantly busier than the exemplar set out in section 6.4.16 of LTN1/20 and therefore not suitable for one way shuttle operation.

13.    Option 2A:  providing substandard lanes in both directions is also not recommended.   Whilst the southbound side of the road has no side accesses/crossing movements, the northbound side is crossed by a number of driveways.  Because there is a greater number of hazards on the northbound side of the road it is recommended that Option 2B is progressed with a cycle lane provided in the northbound direction, with the southbound side of the road showing cycle roundels.

14.    It is proposed that Option 2B is progressed as part of the Highways Maintenance Scheme.

Location 3 - Slingsby Grove shopping area.  

15.    Concerns were raised in respect of the original proposals for Slingsby Grove around:

§  The lack of a pedestrian crossing in the area to cater for people using the shops and bus stops, despite one being provided in the Horseshoe/ Middlethorpe Grove  area of Tadcaster Road;

§  The proposal to relocate the bus stop outside residential properties south of Slingsby Grove;

§  The configuration of the northbound cycle lane adjacent to Slingsby Grove shops – specifically whether it was best provided between the footway and the parked cars, or the parked cars and vehicle carriageway.

16.    Annex B shows a proposed new layout which:

§  Moves the pedestrian crossing proposed for the Horseshoe area to just south of Slingsby Grove, retaining a pedestrian refuge to cater for crossing movements near Middlethorpe Grove;

§  Retains the bus stop within the shopping area, placing it approximately 20m north of its current location; and

§  Has a marked northbound cycle lane between the parked cars and the carriageway, protected by a 500mm buffer strip

17.    These changes address the concerns raised and will be progressed as part of the HMS. If the draft design is agreed by the Executive Member, localised consultation will take place to inform residents and businesses of the proposed changes from the plans presented over the summer.   It is proposed that a decision on the final configuration of the scheme is delegated to the Director of Transport Environment and Planning in consultation with the Executive Member for Transport with the Expectation that this section will be delivered as part of the Highways Maintenance Scheme.

Location 4 Moor Lane roundabout

18.    Moor Lane roundabout continues to be a substantial impediment to cyclists on Tadcaster Road, particularly those heading southbound towards York College.  The consultants have produced an alternative indicative design for Moor Lane roundabout which features:

§  Straight through crossings on the Principal Rise and both Tadcaster Road arms of the roundabout

§  Provision of a two-way cycle path on the southern side of the roundabout to enable cyclists to bypass it.

19.    This layout is shown in Annex C of this report.

20.    The traffic delay implications of this layout would need to be modelled prior to a decision being taken on implementation – however, an initial judgement would be that removing one of the northbound lanes across the roundabout would have an adverse effect on congestion and delay, particularly in the PM peak where there is already congestion in this location. A costing of this interventions set suggests it would cost approximately £870,000 to deliver.  Although funds of approximately £400,000 are available over the next two years to replace life expired traffic signals equipment on the roundabout, there is insufficient headroom in the budget to fund the design in Annex C without further funding being identified.


21.    There also remains the possibility that a more comprehensive redesign of the junction may be possible if funding can be sought in relation to development proposals on the Moor Lane car park (currently being used as a vaccination centre). 

22.    It is recommended that measures on Moor Lane roundabout are considered further, but not prioritised for delivery as part of the Highway Maintenance Scheme.

Location 5 - Moor Lane Roundabout to Sim Balk Lane

23.    The section from Moor Lane roundabout to the Sim Balk Lane junction contains a number of elements.  Owing to the complexity of resolving the shared path pinch point around the Sim Balk Lane junction (Cemetery Corner) at the time of writing it has not been possible to identify an optimal combination of measures which is also affordable and technically deliverable.

24.    Work will continue to do this, but it is recommended that an allowance of £500,000 is made in the scheme cost schedule to accommodate the interventions set at this location. A further report will be brought forward to the Executive Member to consider this section.  This report will consider whether this element of the scheme is best delivered as part of the Highways Maintenance Scheme.

Location 6 - Approach to light segregation

25.    The position with regards to light segregation on Tadcaster Road is not straightforward. Although LTN1/20 provides some guidance about how to use light segregation, a variety of different techniques are being used by different local authorities.  Design options should be considered carefully to minimise maintenance and visual intrusion while protecting users in the lane.

26.    Some installations of light segregation have been successful in reducing cyclist/ vehicle conflict, whilst others have imposed disproportionate maintenance liabilities.  The guidance in LTN 1/20 – and also the quality review of the scheme undertaken by West Yorkshire Combined Authority as part of the funding process – is supportive of providing light segregation as a means to reduce conflicts between cyclists and motorised vehicles and increase rider confidence on the corridor.


27.        Light segregation can also mean many things, including (but not limited to):

§   Kerb segregated lanes

§   Barriers

§   Wands/ rails

§   Lanes stepped up from the carriageway level and protected by rumble strips

28.    On Tadcaster Road the position is challenging in design terms.  The width of the road varies and there are sections of sub-standard width highway.  In some locations there is a need to provide protection for cyclists as they come on and off the carriageway.  There are also obstacles, such as pedestrian refuges, which constrict the carriageway width for short distances and junctions with compromised layouts and geometries.  Much of the corridor is also of high amenity, including sections in conservation areas.  There are driveways and parking adjacent to cycle lanes, and some cobbled areas with roadside trees.  In this sense Tadcaster Road is similar to many of York’s principal radials, all of which present similar challenges, if varying by degree.  Because of this, the approach piloted through this scheme will be evaluated so that its good features can be incorporated into the future schemes which can be expected to be designed as York develops its Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.

29.    The various constraints mean it is not possible to provide segregation all the way along the corridor (as has been done in some other towns and cities).  Instead the approach taken is to use light segregation in relation to a particular conflict point.

30.    Aecom, who are leading the design work on the Tadcaster Road corridor, have considered cycle lane segregation options at those locations where cyclists are most vulnerable – and hence providing more formal segregation is required to deliver a safe scheme.  These points are, namely:

§  At re-entry points from off-carriageway to on-carriageway

§  Opposite side roads where there is a risk an ahead vehicle will undertake a right turning vehicle and stray into the cycle lane

§  Where the half road width is at the 4.5m minimum (3.0m general traffic lane + 1.5m cycle lane)

31.    Two types of treatment are proposed depending on the specific location characteristics as set out below – proposed locations are shown in Annex D.:


32.    Type 1 – ‘Light’ segregation: This is proposed where there is sufficient width to use bolt down segregation features whilst still maintaining at least 1.5m effective cycle lane width.  One potential product is the Rosehill Narrow Cycle Lane Defender (there are other product options). The image below shows an example of its application on Great North Road, Newcastle with a ‘wand pole’ at the beginning and end of every section of segregation.



33.    The proposed locations of light segregation are represented by the yellow dotted areas adjacent to the cycle lane line on the drawing in Annex D.  Care has been taken to position the features so as to maintain access to driveways.  13 sections of light segregation are provided along the length of the corridor, each one relating to a conflict point.  These sections are generally 20-30m in length, covering approximately 5% of the total 7km kerb length of the corridor.

34.    Type 2 – Stepped cycle track: This intervention is proposed at locations where the half road width is 4.5m / there is insufficient space to accommodate light segregation. A level difference kerbed cycle track is provided as shown in the image below. Huntingdon Road Cambridge is a good example.

35.    Where a stepped cycle track is proposed, the edge of cycle lane marking has been replaced with a solid purple line in the attached drawing.  In total approx. 520m of stepped cycle track has been identified on Tadcaster Road.  This is in one location - on both sides of Tadcaster Road in the Hunters Way area (approx. 100m on both sides of the junction) where the road width is constrained.

36.    The total cost of the above interventions is estimated at approximately £350,000, although this is subject to further work from costing specialists as the design is refined.  At this stage this can be accommodated within the outline budget.

37.    It is recommended that there is engagement with modal groups, residents and other interested parties to refine the approach to light segregation which is proposed and to identify and address any issues or concerns that may be raised.


38.    Extensive consultation was undertaken over the summer of 2021 which informed the report prepared for the October 2021 decision session.  This report is mindful of that consultation and additional consultation has been undertake with the ward councillors in Dringhouses Ward given the changes proposed in this location as part of this report.


39.    The Executive Member can:

§  Accept the approach which is recommended in this report

§  Reject the approach detailed in the report and instruct officers of the additional work required.


40.    Accepting the approach recommended in this report allows the business case for this project to be submitted to the funder in line with the timescales required to deliver this scheme as part of the highway maintenance scheme which has time limited funding.

41.    Future analysis will involve the monitoring of the corridor to assess the impact on sustainable modes of transport.  The detail of this will be developed with WYCA as part of the detailed monitoring and evaluation strategy.

Council Plan

42.    The measures proposed for Tadcaster Road support all the sustainable transport objectives in the Council Plan 2019-2023, and also economic development objectives, objectives to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions in York.




This is an update report to the report to the Executive Member provided in October 2021.  Financial implications are considered in that report and there are no additional financial considerations in this report.


Any packages of works and professional services in respect of this project will need to be carried out in accordance with the council’s Contract Procedure Rules and the Pubic Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs), as appropriate.

It is noted that funding will be received from Transforming Cities Funding (via WYCA). Legal Services will review the funding agreement once it is received, which will be based on the standard template agreement with WYCA.

As part of the review of the funding agreement, an analysis of the funding in respect of the Subsidy Control Regime (previously State Aid) will need to be undertaken.  It is highly likely however that the funding will not amount to a controlled subsidy as CYC will use the funding to contract with suppliers to deliver the approved delivery and procurement strategy, and will ensure that a compliant, competitive procurement route is followed in accordance with the PCRs.  This should therefore satisfy the requirement that trade between the UK and the EU is not affected.


One Planet Council / Equalities

43.    The Tadcaster Road scheme has an important role in promoting equality of access to the transport network and, by implication, to the opportunities afforded by use of York’s transport network.  An EIA is contained with Annex E.

Risk Management – A key objective of this project has been to deliver the sustainable transport improvements to Tadcaster Road at the same time as the Highway Maintenance Scheme.  This is to minimise disruption on a key arterial route for both the users and residents in the area. Combining the two schemes achieves 15% more for the funding available.  Failure to agree a scheme now would result in two separate schemes with the consequent impact on disruption and value for money.


Contact Details




Chief Officer Responsible for the report:

Julian Ridge

Sustainable Transport Manager

Tel No. 2435

James Gilchrist

Director of Environment, Transport and Planning






Specialist Implications Officer(s)  List information for all


Implication : Financial (Patrick Looker)      Implication: Legal (Dan Moynihan)


Wards Affected:  Micklegate and Dringhouses and Woodthorpe






For further information please contact the authors of the report





Annex A – Existing Layout/ areas agreed October 2021

Annex B – Proposed new layout around Slingsby Grove

Annex C – Potential Moor Lane Roundabout layout for evaluation

Annex D – Light segregation proposals

Annex E – Equalities Impact Assessment


Background Papers

Decision Session – Executive Member for Transport – 19 October 2021

Tadcaster Road Sustainable Modes Improvement Scheme

Tadcaster Rd Sustainable Modes Report.pdf (york.gov.uk)



List of Abbreviations Used in this Report

HMS - Highways Maintenance Scheme 

LCWIP - Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

PCRs - Contract Procedure Rules and the Pubic Contracts Regulations 2015

WYCA – West Yorkshire Combined Authority

TCF – Transforming Cities Fund

CYC – City of York Council