Agenda item

This reports examines options for extending the off-road cycle facilities on Beckfield Lane. The Executive Member is asked to consider these options in order to allow this scheme to progress.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member authorises the continued design of, and public consultation on, the proposal shown in Annex C to the officer report.

REASON:                  To allow the scheme to progress in comparison with other cycle schemes around the city.

The Executive Member considered a report which looked at options for extending the recently constructed off-road cycle facilities on Beckfield Lane between Boroughbridge Road and Ostman Road, to the junction with Wetherby Road.

The Executive Member referred to further written representations he had received from:

• Councillor D’Agorne, who agreed that the scheme was worthwhile but suggested that there were other schemes in the capital programme that were a higher priority in terms of reducing accidents, promoting cycling and developing a coherent cycle network, notably Blossom Street and Fishergate Gyratory.
• Peter Pagliaro, York Access Group, in support of the extension to the new shared path, believing that it would improve safe access not only to pupils and others at Manor CE School, but also to cyclists and those with special needs. 
• Susan and Julian Jones, local residents, in support of the proposal to extend the shared path believing that it would improve safety and improve access for cyclists, wheelchair users and those with special needs.
• Geoff and Dianne Henman, residents, in support of the proposal to eventually extend the new shared path along both sides of Beckfield Lane.
• David Brown, Secretary York Access Group, in support of the implementation of the proposals at the earliest opportunity but had concerns about shared paths without a tactile division recognisable by guide dogs.
• Adrian Pagliaro, resident, in support of the scheme believing the proposed extension would improve safety on a busy and dangerous stretch of road, particularly for children travelling to school.
• Debbie Pagliaro, resident, in support of the proposal as the shared path would improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
• Reverend Phil Carman, resident,  in support of the proposal as the fast moving traffic in Beckfield Lane presented dangerous road conditions for cyclists, especially children travelling to Manor CE School.

Peter Pagliaro of York Access Group, spoke in support of the proposal.  He stated that the new shared path was being well-used, and had also been welcomed by wheelchair users.  The latest proposal was also well-thought out and would improve the safety of cyclists.

Paul Hepworth, Cycling Touring Club, expressed concern regarding the proposed toucan crossing near the Ostman Road junction which would necessitate cyclists travelling alongside Beckfield Lane to pass the entrance/exit to the Civic Amenity site.  He suggested that consideration be given to siting the toucan crossing on the B1224 side of the tip access or if this were not possible, to install some minimal physical calming to be installed to reduce vehicle speeds on entering or leaving the Amenity site.  Officers responded to the concerns regarding the siting of the crossing and explained that a pedestrian survey had taken place which showed a higher number of pedestrians crossing near Ostman Road, and the proposed siting of the crossing removed the need for cyclists to cross the access to the shops.  As part of the detailed design further consideration would be given to access to the Amenity site.

Following consideration of all comments received the Executive Member then considered the following options:

Option One – authorise continued design and public consultation on the proposal shown in Annex C;

Option Two – make any changes to the proposal that the Executive Member considers necessary before progressing to design and consultation;

Option Three – defer further work on this scheme at this time, but keep the scheme in reserve for consideration at a later date for potential inclusion in future transport capital programmes.

The Executive Member commented that a number of points had been made both in favour and against the proposal.  Those in favour of the completion of the Beckfield Lane off carriageway cycle path, had drawn attention to the narrow carriageway width and the relatively large numbers of cyclists who already choose, probably for safety reasons, to use the public footpath.  It was acknowledged that there were a significant number of pensioners living in the area and they were likely to prefer an arrangement whereby a cycle path was clearly delineated from the area used by pedestrians.  Leaving the cycle path half complete would be contrary to the Council’s aim of providing safe routes for school children and other cycle users.  There was a particular problem in Beckfield Lane with the large vehicles which service the Civic recycling site which was located halfway down the street.  Views had been put forward that there were more pressing cycling schemes which deserved priority. Officers had been asked to bring forward a model which would forecast how particular improvements would influence cyclists’ behaviour and what effect the improvement would have on the numbers choosing to cycle.  This model was not yet ready.

The Executive Member drew attention to the Executive decision of 31 March 2009 to agree in principle the proposed allocation of funding in Annex C, with an allocation of £270,000 towards the Lendal Cycle hub and £54,000 towards route maintenance, but requested officers to develop further a predictive modelling system aimed at establishing the increase in cycle usage that individual improvement schemes will produce.  Such a model was to be used to inform the final choice of capital schemes to be implemented.

In the meantime it was possible to make simple comparisons with the investment needs for other schemes, which were generally more costly than the Beckfield Lane proposal, with the important factors being the current number of cyclists and the number of accidents on the route.  Beckfield Lane was a key safe route to school for two secondary schools and a local primary school.

The Executive Member reiterated that the priority should be contrasted with other schemes.  These included the Lendal Towers cycle hub and proposed “on carriageway” improvements in Fishergate and Blossom Street.  However, these schemes were all much more complex in design terms than Beckfield Lane and hence more likely to be delayed during the public consultation process.  Any delays could influence the ability to spend the full £3.5 million Cycle City grant, the deadline for which was March 2011.  Funding was in place for all the schemes over the next three years.  It would be prudent at this time to move them all forward at least to the next stage of public consultation.  The Executive Member stated that in taking that decision, he had placed some weight on the views expressed by the York Access Group, which represented the interests of people with disabilities.

Officers would need to look carefully at the quality and extent of the markings which delineated the pedestrian and cycle paths and would also need to produce a convincing solution to the junction arrangements at the Wetherby Road end of the route and at the siting of the crossing.  It would not be easy to develop a network of off carriageway cycle paths and hence when opportunities arose they must be seized.

RESOLVED:             That the Executive Member authorises the continued design of, and public consultation on, the proposal shown in Annex C to the officer report¹.

REASON:                  To allow the scheme to progress in comparison with other cycle schemes around the city.