Issue - meetings

A decision is required to approve the proposed junction alterations.

Resolved: (i)      That Option 3 be approved, as set out in

                             paragraphs 57 to 64 of the report.

Reasons:            a)      To achieve the core aim of replacing the life-expired traffic signal asset such that it can continue be operated and repaired economically.

b)      To provide further benefits for users by introducing a new pedestrian crossing, an addition generally supported by the consultees and local user groups.

(ii)      That officers note the suggestions made in respect of this item under Public Participation for consideration as part of the detailed design of the scheme.

Reason:     To ensure that proper consideration is given to the feasibility of including further improvements within the scheme.

The Executive Member considered a report which sought approval for proposed alterations at the junction between Bishopthorpe Road and Scarcroft Road.

Traffic signalling at the junction required replacing under the council’s Traffic Signal Asset Renewal (TSAR) programme.  This offered an opportunity to make alterations to further improve pedestrian safety.  Four options were available, as detailed in paragraphs 18-89 of the report and summarised briefly below with associated costs.  Options 1-3 all included replacement of the traffic signalling technology in accordance with TSAR and removal of the left turn lane on the southern arm of Bishopthorpe Road.  Responses to the stakeholder consultation carried out on options 1-3 were set out in Annex A to the report.

Option 1 (shown in Annex B) – replace the left turn lane with a widened footpath and short length of cycle lane and ASL.  £90k.

Option 2 (shown in Annex C) – as Option 1, plus similar changes to the Scarcroft Road approach and further changes to the northern arm approach and junction staging.  £120.5k.

Option 3 (shown in Annex D)- as Option 2, plus installation of a new pedestrian crossing on the northern arm of the junction and relocation of the cycle stands. £165k.  This was the recommended option, as it provided all the benefits of options 1 and 2 plus further improvements to pedestrian safety, and was supported by the responses to consultation.

Option 4 – no changes.  This was not recommended.

Officers confirmed that the ‘Danish option’ favoured by the YCC had been discounted as it would increase delays and worsen air quality, as detailed in paragraph 94.  Having noted this, and the other comments made under Public Participation, the Executive Member

Resolved: (i)      That Option 3 be approved, as set out in paragraphs 57 to 64 of the report.

Reasons:   a)      To achieve the core aim of replacing the life-expired traffic signal asset such that it can continue be operated and repaired economically.

b)      To provide further benefits for users by introducing a new pedestrian crossing, an addition generally supported by the consultees and local user groups.

(ii)      That officers note the suggestions made in respect of this item under Public Participation for consideration as part of the detailed design of the scheme.

Reason:     To ensure that proper consideration is given to the feasibility of including further improvements within the scheme.