Harrogate Cycle Network Prioritisation

North Yorkshire Council (NYC) has published a report detailing its cycle prioritisation work for Harrogate.

The report’s recommendation to proceed with ‘stakeholder engagement’, and to extend the work to Knaresborough, will be considered at a council meeting on 22nd February 2024.

TL;DR

The idea of developing a list of priority cycle routes for improvement is a good one. This work was done at the initiative of Harrogate District Cycle Action.

The problem is that NYC is simply not delivering the schemes on the map.

The way it ought to work is : scheme gets to the top of the list and is funded > scheme is delivered > move on to the next one.

The way it actually works (or doesn’t work) in North Yorkshire is: scheme gets to the top of the list and is funded > scheme is abandoned or diluted to the point of meaninglessness > move on to the next one.

It is therefore impossible to have confidence that NYC’s paper plans will lead to meaningful on-the-ground improvements.

Background

Consultants WSP were commissioned to write a Cycle Infrastructure Plan (CIP) in 2017. By 2019, they had produced a Phase 1 and a Phase 2 report.

The CIP included a cycle network map showing all the routes that ought to be made safe for cycling. The consultants also identified four priority routes, and produced designs for them.

NYC didn’t do anything about any of the routes identified – the consultants’ report sat on a shelf gathering dust.

Harrogate District Cycle Action (HDCA) took the initiative to look at all the routes on the cycle network map, and come up with high-level designs for them – what infrastructure would make them safe and attractive.

In 2021, the cycle campaign started working with NYC to turn that into a formal list of cycling priorities that could be adopted by the council as policy.

That work was completed by December 2022, but the council then delayed for the whole of 2023. Now the report has been published, the work is moving forward again.

Cycle Priority Assessment

NYC looked at 160 routes or sections of routes, and rated them according to criteria which included:

• forecast increase in number of cycle trips and
• BCR

Short, Medium and Long Term Priorities

Government guidance for Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) tells councils to divide proposed infrastructure improvements into priorities – short-, medium- and long-term.

NYC’s Short-Term Priorities (< 3 Years)

The short-term priorities demonstrate the fundamental problem here.

NYC had a scheme in place on Beech Grove but ripped it out, despite majority support.

Otley Road Phase 2 was funded, but NYC diverted the funds to other non-cycling schemes instead. The bit of Otley Road Cycleway left in the short-term priorities is not Phase 2, but Phase 3, further to the west. That means NYC is deliberately planning a broken link.

That makes two broken links in the cycle network – Otley Road Phase 2 and Beech Grove.

NYC’s cycle prioritisation map (top of the page) tries to fudge the problem area by putting yellow shading on it and calling it a “Study Area”.

In reality, no studying is being done.

Otley Road and Beech Grove got to the top of the list, were funded, but then a political decision was made to abandon them instead of delivering them, resulting in two broken links.

The cycle prioritisation report says:

‘It is important that a cohesive network exists and as each priority route develops officers will work to ensure appropriate links are identified that connect into key destinations and existing provision’.

cycle prioritisation report, para. 3.10

Unfortunately, NYC only understands the importance of a cohesive network in theory; in practice, to the extent that they are delivering anything at all, it is a network of broken links.

What does that suggest about future schemes? Does anyone believe that NYC will have the backbone and determination to deliver the next scheme that gets to the top of the list and make sure it fits into a cohesive network?

Medium-Term Priorities (3 to 5 Years)

Long-Term Priorities (> 5 Years)

It is shocking to see Oatlands Drive relegated to the list of long-term priorities. This means the council does not intend to implement an ambitious scheme there for 5 years or more, and claims to have “no defined infrastructure solution”.

A scheme for Oatlands Drive was funded by Active Travel Fund 2, before being dropped. The council has since spent the money on a consultants’ report, asking them to come up with infrastructure solutions, which they did.

So it is incorrect to say that there is no infrastructure solution: there is. What is missing is the political will to implement it.

Just as with Otley Road and Beech Grove, the NYC Executive refuses to deliver a scheme to make cycling safe on Oatlands Drive.

Based on the council’s conduct, why would anyone believe that it intends to create a coherent cycle network?

Pipeline of Schemes

The report says (para 3.12) that Active Travel England expects councils to have a pipeline of schemes and a clear strategic plan of how cycle routes will link up.

Once again, any strategic plan for how cycle routes will link up is fantasy when the council is only delivering broken links.

Engagement not Consultation

NYC does not want to hold a public consultation, only an engagement with selected stakeholders.

The council repeatedly tries to exclude the public from knowing about its paper plans. It probably fears that if people knew about them, there might be pressure to deliver them.

Knaresborough

Harrogate Cycle Action only looked at Harrogate, but the council intends to extend the prioritisation work to Knaresborough, which was included in the original CIP.

Appendix B

Appendix B (several pages) includes the Harrogate Cycle Prioritisation Summary/Top 30.