Cycle Infrastructure on the A59 Poppleton to York - Part 1
29th October 2021
Cycling in Yorkshire
Cycling in Yorkshire
29th October 2021
The cycle infrastructure along the A59 between Poppleton and York City Centre is a hotch-potch of different, largely low-quality, facilities.
The main problem with the route is its lack of continuity and consistency. (This is not the first time I've made that observation about a route in York).
It's a shame because there's huge potential for utility cycling along the A59. The distance from Poppleton to the city centre is modest and easily cycleable, if only there were safe and convenient provision.
From the residential areas inside the Ring Road, it's just a mile or two to the city centre - perfect for cycling.
Plenty of people do ride bikes along here despite the poor provision. I would say:
Some general provisions of LTN 1/20 spring to mind when cycling this route, and if they were to be applied they would result in big improvements to the infrastructure.
'Cycle infrastructure should be designed for significant numbers of cyclists, and for non-standard cycles. Our aim is that thousands of cyclists a day will use many of these schemes.'
Summary Principle 5, LTN 1/20
The current provision is based on the idea that hardly anyone will use it, so the quality and the capacity don't really matter.
Also relevant is Summary Principle 3, which says that cyclists must be physically separated and protected from high volume motor traffic:
Long sections of the current provision are narrow, painted, unprotected, on-road cycle lanes. This is the wrong type of provision for a busy A-road, and in any case the lanes do not meet minimum widths in the guidance.
There's quite a lot to say about the mish-mash of cycle provision. In this post, I'll cover Poppleton to the Water End junction, and leave the rest to a Part 2 post.
From Station Road Poppleton to the Ring Road, there's a shared use pavement. It's 2m 10cm wide, or less in places where the hedges and bushes are overgrown.
Problem: it is too narrow. The minimum width in the guidance is 3m.
Solution: take space from the road to widen it, and ideally create a level difference between walking and cycling paths, or use a trapezoidal strip to separate walking and cycling areas.
If you wish to continue along the A59 at the Ring Road roundabout, provision is excellent. There's an underpass, with separate cycle track and walking path.
The only thing to add would be a centre-line for the cycle track.
(There isn't any provision to take a different route - it's A59 or A59).
The other side of the Ring Road, there's a shared use pavement which leads to a pavement plus cycle lane. After the cycle lane starts, the widths are:
Problem: an unprotected, painted cycle lane is the wrong type of infrastructure for an extremely busy A-road with a 40mph limit. A fully-kerbed cycle track is needed - see Table 4-1, LTN 1/20, with an Absolute Minimum buffer to the road of 50cm.
Solution: a 2m footway + 3m bi-directional cycle track + 50-100cm buffer to traffic. Take the extra space needed from the carriageway.
A new development called Langley Gate is being built by Miller Homes on the old Civil Service Sports Ground.
If City of York Planning and Highways are on the ball, they will already have secured s.106 money from the developer to upgrade active travel facilities here.
A bi-directional cycle track makes sense until this point, because it leads to/from the Ring Road underpass. This could be the point where it stops, and is replaced by cycle tracks either side of the A59.
(Note: one advantage of a bi-directional track is that it saves space. It only needs to be 3m wide, vs 2 x 2m for one-way tracks either side of the road. There's a further space saving because you only need one buffer).
Problem: cyclists are asked to negotiate a very busy junction in mixed traffic. This is not appropriate - see Table 10-2, LTN 1/20.
Introduction to Chapter 10, LTN 1/20: 'At quieter junctions it may be safer to integrate cyclists into the general traffic streams to reduce the number of conflicts, but at busier junctions it will be necessary to separate and protect cycle movements.'
Solution: a signal-controlled cycle facility (para 10.4.21, LTN 1/20) is needed here, with cyclists offered direct routes with enough green time.
Toucan crossings would mean that motor vehicles were prioritised, and cyclists obliged to detour to the left and wait at a crossing; that would likely put a lot of people off using the cycle facilities.
Introduction to Chapter 10, LTN 1/20: 'Safety is vital, but junctions and crossings should also enable cyclists to negotiate them in comfort without undue delay or deviation.'
The expression 'the cart before the horse' needs to be updated. In this case, it's 'the hire bikes and scooters before the cycle track.'
Problem: the painted cycle lane provides no protection and is only 1m 30 wide.
Solution: a 2m footway + 2m fully-kerbed cycle track + 0-50cm buffer (because 30mph limit here).
The cycle track I have suggested must have priority over minor side roads like Plantation Drive. Parallel crossings (zebra + cycle crossing) of side roads would give cyclists and pedestrians priority.
After Plantation Drive, there's a bus lane with a painted cycle lane on the inside of it. It ends a short distance further on, at the Cranbrook Avenue junction, just before Princess Drive.
Problem: a painted cycle lane up the inside of a bus lane doesn't feel safe, and certainly doesn't meet the 8 to 80 year old test.
As shown in the image above, local authorities often paint lines to make it look as though there's enough space (for a bus and bikes, in this case), where there simply isn't. Conflict between different road users is then baked into the design.
Solution: a fully-kerbed cycle track, and floating bus stops. If that's not possible, create a fully shared bus/cycle lane at least 4m wide, and ideally 4.5m.
Where the bus lane ends, there should be cycle and bus traffic lights that give good priority to bikes and buses over private cars.
Before the junction with Ouse Acres, you're sent off the road. (The footway is set back behind the trees at this point).
If you follow the cycle signs, you're let down by a give-way junction.
Problem: you're expected to leave the road, do a detour, and lose priority at this junction - all to get you out of the way in order to prioritise cars. Para 10.5.7, LTN 1/20 says it's important for cycle tracks to have priority over side roads.
Solution: a priority crossing of Ouse Acres. There are plenty of designs in LTN 1/20. In this case, I'd like to see the cycle track go straight across the mouth of the junction, rather than taking a detour.
After the Ouse Acres junction, you're supposed to share the pavement for a bit, then you're shovelled back onto the road just before a pinch point.
This is what happens when councils try to create cycle infrastructure with a pot of white paint and a brush. It's not good enough.
As before, it needs a cycle track separate from the footway, and with kerb protection from motor vehicles.
Uncontrolled crossings with refuges can be replaced with zebra or parallel crossings without refuges. This enables the removal of central hatching and frees up space.
Problem: nearly all the space has been given to motor vehicles. There are four lanes for vehicles, then people on foot and on bikes are asked to squeeze onto a narrow shared use pavement. That is wrong.
Solution: take two of the four lanes away from motor vehicles. Provide cycle tracks with physical protection up to the junction, and a cycle phase on the lights that allows cyclists to go straight on and right. The left turn for cyclists does not need a green signal and should be possible all the time.
If instead you use Toucan crossings, this will inevitably mean indirect cycle routes and more waiting; it amounts to continuing to prioritise motor vehicles.
The right thing to do is to decide how you want people to make short local journeys, then build for that, rather than trying to accommodate more and more private cars.
I'll finish on a positive (ish) note. If you did turn left, you'd be able to use the dedicated cycle track along Water End.
It's great until it gives up at the railway bridge and leaves you in the lurch. Then it isn't great. You're left with narrow painted cycle lanes again, that encourage close passes.
These improvements would cost money, but would be good value.
It's a question of priorities. If you accept the challenge to make sure half of local trips are made by cycling and walking by 2030, then it's clear that improvements to active travel infrastructure are needed.
Instead, we see £70 million being spent on dualling part of the Ring Road.
Transport for the North say we need to reduce traffic to hit climate targets for 2025 and 2030.
The City of York says that increasing capacity for polluting private cars will contribute to carbon reduction.
They can't both be right. One organisation is reporting the logical conclusions of the scientific facts; the other is engaging in dishonest greenwash.
I'll do the rest of the A59 to the city centre on Monday. Read Part 2.
Rockbros thermal cycling gloves for Autumn and Winter.
£18.99 on Amazon as at 29th October 2021.
Bike Rides In and Around York starts a city tour of York, then there are wonderful family, road, and mountain bike rides.
It's intended to inspire you discover York and the surrounding countryside on two wheels.
Each ride comes with a map and GPS files that you can upload to a device.
'This book is simply a treasure trove not only of great rides but also as a travel guide to the area.' Reader review, July 2021.
Find out more about Bike Rides In and Around York, and buy a copy.
Bike Rides in Harrogate and Nidderdale is a book of family, mountain and road bike rides.
"This guide is a wonderful companion whether you ride alone, with family or friends. Don't set out without it."
Read more about Bike Rides in Harrogate and Nidderdale .