Leeds Tel: 0113 2477581 -.-...-...-.CITY

·'

Agenda Item: 3089/2012 Report author: Tom Rudge Leeds Tel: 0113 2477581 -.-...-...-.CITY

Report to the Chief Officer (Highways and Tral'lsportation)

Date: 13 November 2012

Subject: Design.& C()slReport for A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Measure!; .. . .·. :: . Capital Sc~eme Number: 16255

Are specific electoral Wards affected? ~Yes D No If relevant, name{s) of Ward{s): Headingley

Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and DYes ~ No integration?

Is the decision eligible for Call-In? DYes ~ No

Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? DYes ~ No If relevant, Access to Information Procedure Rule number: .··:. .. . ~ Appendix nurriber:

.-·.· ·: -. · ·'·.· .. · '. ·::···_,,,.· ....

. . . -·.... -- ~

summary c)fmain issues .... . · ' . . · . . . 1 T:his repp,rt~~eks approyal to implement 2 highway safety. schemes qn Headingley Lane/ O(ley . g(>~q (A~()Q). · · · · · · · · · ...... • ·

2 Th~cyClists. ~ai'hbrigge< .Road...... · . ..· .. .'scheme .. . ·. .· · .·.. will aiiTl. td prev. ent turning.. .. conflicts· . ·. . .betw~en ·. . cars...... and

. . . · ._ 3 The3 Shire OC:lk !:)treet sc;heme wiU,aimto give cyclists sufficient room totravel along this busy route by providing an outbound cycle lane fbr cydists to use. .

Recommendations

4 The Chief Officer (Highway and Transportation) is requested to:

i) approve the scheme for the road safety measures on the A660 Headingley Lane/ Otley Road, Headingley, as shown on the attached plan numbers TMW/17.1/1592 and TMW/17.1 /1592/5 at an estimated cost of £18,800; and ii) authorise the City Solicitor to advertise appropriate Traffic Regulation Order and if no valid objections are received, to make, seal and implement th.e order as advertised; and iii) give authority to incur expenditure of £12,000 works costs, £6,000 staff design fee costs and £800 legal advertising costs which can be metfrom the Integrated Transport Scheme 99609 within the approved Capital Programme and is eligible for 100% Government funding.

1 Purpose of this report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to implement 2 highway safety schemes on Headingleylane/ Otley Road (A660); to obtain authority to advertise a draft Traffic Regulation Order to introduce movement and waiting restrictions.

2 Background information

2.1 Bainbrigge Road forms a Give Way controlled T-junction with the A660. Otley Road has two general traffic lanes and a cycle lane on the northbound carriageway through the junction. The surrounding area is of mixed development, with a church, shops and further education premises fronting the junction, but with student accommodation being predominant in the area.

2.2 Recorded injury accidents at this location show 16 since January 2005 with 12 having an injury accident rating at slight and 4 being serious. 10 of the accidents involved vehicles turning right into Bainbrigge Road across the path of a pedal cycle in the cycle lane, typically whilst the cyclist was masked by queuing traffic.

2.3 The problem typically occurs when trc:tffic is queuing outbound along Heacjingley lane, vehicles queuing give way drivers waiting to turn rightinto BainbHgge Road, usually without seeing the cyclists travelling in the cycle lane. ·· · ·. · · · ·· · ·· ·· ·

2.4 . ln' summer2000, to help allevia'te some of the accident~ .where therigp(Jurn is an issue, the cycle lane was highlighted in red material and a yellow box marking was provided. $igns to warn cyclist of turning traffic and to alert qrivers to the .presence of cyGli~ts were provided in summer 2001 ' but have been repeatedly misajigfl~d by vandals. · ·. .· ·. · ·

. .·. 2.5 ·. The $hire Qak Street scheme aim~tc:> provide asc:tfearea for cyclists from St Michaels Road to North Lane, by widening the carriageway at Shire Oak Street to allow the provision of an outbound cycle lane.

2.6 Recorded injury accidents along this length shows 7 accidents involving a cyclist since January 2005 with 4 having an injury accident rating at slight and 3 being serious.

2.7 Local Ward Councillors were consulted regarding the Bainbrigge Road scheme and shortly afterwards requested a meeting to discuss. They were supportive of the scheme and began a small amount of consultation with local community groups. Once funding has been approved we will undertaken a larger consultation in conjunction with the legal advertisement. They were also consulted at a later date regarding the Shire Oak Street scheme and were in support of that also. 3 Main issues

3.1 Design Proposals and Full Scheme Description.

3.1.1 As previou~ measures to highlight the cycle lane and warn both drivers~nd cyclists hav.e. notworked, the re{;OIJlllH~rided solution is to ban the right turn into Bainbrigge Road. · · · ·· .· · > i

. . : .. -~-- '. . . . 3.1.2 This will be achiev~dby neV\1 kerbing works. ton~rrow the junctic)nto a si~gle lane and promoting a one way order for the section of road, making $ainbrigge Road into a No Entry for traffic on Headingley Lane. Narrowing thejunCtion will help to prevent anyone making an illegal turn into Bainbrigge Road.

3.1.3 Doing this will stop the right turn conflict, eliminating this accident pattern and reduce the amount of total accidents at this location.

3.1.4 There is a small area of works to widen the carriageway at Shire Oak Street, this to allow the provision of an outbound cycle lane, this will be obtained by reducing the footway width slightly. ·

3.1.5 There will also be an amendment to the Traffic R(3gulation Order on the North Eastern Side of Otley Road adjacent to the inbound cycle lane. This will be changed from limited Wpi!ipg B~() to No Waiting At AllY Time,thisis to rem

3.1.6 As.par-t qfthe TRO. A School Keep Clear will be forrn~lis~d gr; Spring Road and 1 . . r1ew dis~t:>l§d bay will b(3 il1lplemented. Thi?. .•is ~.. wquest from o ~)()pal Cou,nsmor.who was informed that vvheh any TRO's were being irilplementec!'in;tlle.areathis would be added tothe scheme. · · · · · ·. · · · · ·· ·

•I ;.: 3.2 Pr()gramme

. -. "·(' 3.2.1 . lt}s.aniicipated thatth(3 propos~ls vvillbe.implementedin the financial year '20111.2 , 0.'12 <· : ...... · ·.·• ····.. ·.··.·· . ..·.· .· ·. ·.

... :· . . -..· .. ·: '.- ·.·: · : ·: ··<·;

. .. ~ : . 4 0 Corporate Considerations

4.1 Consultation and Engagement

4.1.1 Ward Members: Consultations with local Ward Members were undertaken on 4 February 2011. No adverse comments have been received to date.

Subsequent consultations were undertaken following the change in Ward Members, responses were received on 09 October 2012, supporting the scheme.

4.1 .2 Emergency Services and Metro (WYPTE): Consultations with Metro and the Emergency Services were undertaken on 4 February 2011. No adverse comments were received.

4.1.3 Residents: Consultations with residents will be undertaken prior to the scheme; any comments received will be taken into consideration. 4.1.4 Accident Studies: Consultations with Road Casualty Reduction were undertaken on 4 February 2011, no adverse cqmments were receiyed .

4.2 Equality and Diversity I Cohesion and Integration 4.3 A~ Equ§lity, Diversity, Coh~_~ion ; and Integration Impact Assessment on Cycle lnfrastruqture was carri~d outin November 2011 and has been published ~ 'The proposed scheme will have §positive impact on the local community as it will provide a safer environment fOr~~~ cyClists, especially yourig'children ·imd students' . . . ·. . . ~ . . . 4.4 Council policies and City P;i6rities

4.4.1 The scheme complies with the following Local Transport Plan (LTP) objectives:

A2 Maintain and improve road, pavement and Rights Of Way (ROWs) Conditions for p~cje?trians, cyclists, vehicle and freight users.

. . .· . . 81 Provide an appropriate road environment with facilities for each user group

84 Encoura~e the correct behaviour of all road users.

4.4.2 ty1qbility: The proposals~ithin have ho imp acton the Council's policy on mobility. :_· -... -.--:,- ~ ---;; ·- >. . : _.~''. ::: · ..------: <: -·-:. ·.·. -- · .: ·-.· - : -: -: ..· - . · . . · •, -::- · ~ •,",.: . -·-.. ·;.·: : -· ...... : 4.4.3 Environmental Policy: Jhe proposals within are in line with the aims of the Council's

pp:·.: :·;-,licy.:.. ,- ..... · : c)n:_ :-...... ~hvironment9U?~l1~~ :, ·.- ·.< ;.;·.-.:-.··:··.::--:.-. :.·.· .· . .·.., . ·. 4.4:1.' ~~~~~~~¥;~~~~~~!~~D~fe~~£~=t~~~~s~~f~hbg()~~N~port qtr?\.,9Y a~.. · ~·~· ·'~l.ement ': -_- :·. : · _· ·... ·· . · - : -__ :· . .. 4.5 Resources ar1d value for m~n~y ··, ·,-

4.5.1 Th~ to,t?l cost of Jh~ .schemE=} i::; >estimat~d at £18,80(), fO[lpromising of~12,000 works casts, £6,000 st$ff cj~*igr\ 'fee costs and £8()0 legal advertising CQ~ts; I/IJhich can be met from the Integrated Transport Scheme 99609 within the approved CapitaiProgramme and is eligible for 100% Governm~ntfunding . . · ·

4.5.2 Capital Funding and Cash Flow.

Complete the embedded table below: C C Supported Borrowing 0.0 Revenue Contribution 0.0 ap ita! Receipt 0.0 Insurance Receipt 0.0 ouery 0.0 . ifts /Bequests I Trusts 0.0 u ropean Grant 0.0 H e~lth Authority 0.0 c~pol Fundraising 0.0 Private Sector 0.0 ection 106/278 0.0 Government Grant 18.8 3.2 15.6 CE (C) 0.0 CE( R) 0.0 epartmental USB 0.0 Corporate USB 0.0 ny Other Income (Specify) 0.0

Parent Scheme Number : 99609 Title : Integrated Transport Parent Scheme

4.6 Legal Implications, Access to Information and Call In

4.6.1 This report is not eligible for call in as the proposal falls below the relevant threshold.

4. 7 Risk Management

4.7.1 There are no risks, other than those normally encountered when working on the highway, associated with the scheme.

0 ,._eA ...... ,.,. , ,~ .• e •••'" ' ,,,,,-u-. -~·'•' •" • ""'" "'"'"' "'''•'' •... •' .-'• ...... --,'•••'" 'N'···.~•J'.. ••"'' •'·•,·•'••-.• "' •o•.' •'•'•'•'•''''' '·' ·'''' .....- ..,...... ---.------.-.-- ...... ,...... -- ~--... .,. ,...... •..•~ ..... ---~ ..... ---~------· ..., ...... , ...... _,. _ _,._ ,_, ...... ,....-.---- ...... ~- ...- -··· ·· -'"·' .,... ..,...... ·.·-·· ·.-"··--~ ~------... -- 5 Recommendations

5.1 The Chief Officer (Highway and Transportation) isreque~ted to:

ii) authoris(3 th~ Gity.Solicitor to advertise .apprppriatt3 Traffic Regulation OrdE3rand if nOV@IJg .Objections are received, to make, sea!"arid implement the ord~r as . ·.... . advertis~d; and

iii)give authority to incur expenditure of £12,000 works costs, £6,000 staff costs and £800 legal advertising costs which can be met from the Integrated Transport Scheme 99609 within the approved Capital Programme and is eligible for 100 % Government funding.

6 Backgro.unc:J qocuments 1

6.1 None.

1 The background documents listed in this section are available to download from the Council's website, unless they contain confidential or exempt information. The list of background documents does not include published works.

U:HWT/Admin/Wordproc/Comm/2012/A660 Remidial Cycling Safety Measures.doc Agenda Item: 3337/2013 Report author: Thomas Rudge Leeds Tel: 0113 2477581 CITY COUNCIL

Report tp t~e Chief Officer (Highways and Transportation)

Date: 11 June 2013

Subject: Design & Cost Report -Objection Report

A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Measures -Objections received. ·

C ap1·t a ISc herne N urn b er: 16255 Are specific eleCtoral Wards affected? [g] Yes D No If relevant, name(s) of Ward(s): Headingley

Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and D Yes [8] No integration?

Is the decision eligible for Call-In? D Yes [g] No Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? D Yes [g]. No If relevant, Access to Information Procedure Rule number: . ' : ' '

I)IJrnber: '' Ap~~ndix : c ,. ,, > : : . ' .., ., . ' · ' . ' '

Summary of main issues . :' . . : ....

1 An objection have been received to proposals on Bainbrigge Road. This objection was received in response to initial residents consultation and has been irresolvableduririg detailed design, the resident now wishes for the objection tc)be made formal and reported to the Chief Officer (Highways and Transportation) for consideration. . '

2 Proposals were to introduce a one way plug on Bainbrigge Road at the junction of A660 Otley Road, this was approved by Chief Officer (Highways and Transportation) on 26 June 12 . . .

3 This report requests that this objection be over-ruled and the Order sealed.

Recommendations

4. The Chief Officer (Highways and Transportation) is requested to:

i) consider and over-rule the objection received to the advertised Order; and

ii) request the City Solicitor to seal and implement Leeds City Council Traffic Regulation (Waiting Restrictions) (No 37) Order 2012 and Leeds City Council Traffic Regulation (Movement Restrictions) (No 12) Order 2012 , and to inform the objector accordingly. 1 Purpose of this report

1.1 This report requests the Chief Officer(Highways and Transportation) to consider an objection to the proposed works on Bainbrigge Road.

2 Background information

2.1 Approval was grant§d on26 June 2012for the advertis§m§nt ()f Ci Traffic R~gulation Order (Waiting Restrictions) (No 37) Order 2012 and Traffic Regulation (Movement Restrictions) (No 12) Order 2012.

2.2 The proposal was developed in response to a consistent pattern of cycle collisions at the Headingley Lane/ Bainbrigge Road junction (18 cyclists injured in 5 years) Right turning traffic into Bainbrigge Road are unable to see cyclists travelling on the inside of queuing traffic. The scheme addresses this problem by banning the turn into Bainbrjgge Road from Headingley Lane, creating a one way plug at the end ofBainbrigge Road.

2.3 All Local Ward Members are in support of the scheme. When previous Councillors undertook the initial residents consultation, there was 50% support and 50% opposition to the scheme.

2.4 The proposals were advertised on site and in the press on 12August 2012. No formal objectionsto the advertised order were received during the advertisement period. Since thistim§a.Jqrmal obj§c;tion h(3s been •.rgceived.

2.5 Cycle cqUisions across the route will be monitored by accident studies to ensure that the problem does not migrate to another junction. ··.

3 Maig.·_·- o: -·.- ·=.·:·->••·::·i~·su~s=_· _-: .-: :·::_--_:·:::· _.... :·.-.- - . _. : : . , 3.1 .· .. Desi~n Proposals ()net Full Sch~rne pesc:ription.

3. 1.1 One objection to the proposals has been received. The outstanding objection is detailed below:

Objector 1 considers that the inconvenience caused by making the top of the road one way would be substantial Objector 1 and that the collision problem would migrate elsewhere. Traffic have corresponded in depth with the objector who understands the need for scheme however still believes that the negatives of the scheme out weighs the benefits and that we should increase signing.

3.1 .2 The Traffic Management Section's comments on this objection is:

i) The scheme's objective is to remove the collision problem at this junction. Previous measures such as signing to highlight the hazard and red surfacing have not been effective in this respect, therefore the only viable option is to remove the right turn conflict by creating the one way plug. 4 Conclusions

4.1 This objection has been considered in depth by Traffic Management, who believe that the benefits of this road safety scheme out weigh any negatives which may arise. ·Collisions at surrounding junctions will be monitored for migration after scheme implementation. · ·

5 Recommendations

5.1 The Chief Officer (Highways and Transportation) is requested to:

i) consider and over-rule the objection received to the advertised Order; and

6 Background documents 1

6.1 None

U:HWT/Admin/Wordproc/Comm/2013/A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Measures- Objection.doc Page I of I

Rudge, Thomas

From: Peters, Joanne Sent: 14 January 201110:10 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: RE: A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Scheme

Mark Robinson needs to speak to Tim Parry regarding this scheme. Please do not proceed until they are happy with your recommendations. I have asked Mark to contact you directly.

Regards,

Joanne Peters. Transport planning assistant Transport policy Leeds City Council Tel: 0113 24 75299 ) ~L~~Q§.,gQY" l!.~

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 11 January 201114:22 To: Peters, Joanne; Robinson, Mark; Owen, Gwyn Subject: A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Scheme

Hi,

Please find attached drawings for the above scheme.

There is one omission, which is between St Michaels Road and North Lane outbound, introducing an outbound cycle lane here is not feasible due to the lack of carriageway width. The Leeds City Council Street Design Guide 2009 states that for a connector street, a minimum width along a bus route is 6. 75 metres. At present there Is already an inbound cycle lane which leave 0.85 metres, which is not an acceptable width.

If you are happy with these proposals, I will progress with the scheme and input a highways board report.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management- West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 3951819 Page 1 of2

Rudge, Thomas

From: Russ Hepton [[email protected]] Sent: 04 February 2011 11:23 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

HiTom, No objection to this proposal. Regards Russ

From: Rudge, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 February 201111:13 To: [email protected]; Russ Hepton; [email protected]; Bellamy, Andrew; Buckley, James; Monks, Steven; [email protected]; Hamilton, Cllr Martin; Matthews, Cllr Jamie; Monaghan, Cllr James ) Subject: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme I Bainbrlgge Road Safety Scheme Proposals

Please find attached details of a proposed scheme for Bainbrigge Road, Headingley. This scheme aims to decrease the amount of killed or seriously injured accidents at this site.

R~corded injury accidents at this location shows 16 since January 2005 with 12 having an injury accident rating at slight and 4 being serious. 10 of the accidents involved vehicles turning right into Bainbrigge Road across the path of a pedal cycle in the cycle lane, typically whilst the cyclist was masked by queuing traffic.

The problem typically occurs when traffic is queueing outbound along Headingley lane, vehicles queueing give way drivers waiting to turn right into Bainbrigge Road, usually without seeing the cyclists travelling in the cycle fane.

As previous measures to highlight the cycle lane and warn both drivers and cyclists have not worked, the recommended solution is to ban the right turn into Brainbrigge Road .

) This will be achieved by new kerbing works to nan·ow the junction and promoting a one way order for the section of .f road.

I would appreciate any comments within 14 days.

Kind Regards,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management -West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 3951819

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail. Page 2 of2

!******************************************************* *********** **** IMPORTANT NOTICE:

This e~mail and the information that it contains may be confidential,legally privileged and protected by law. Acc~ss by the intended recipient only is authorised. Any legal liability (in contract or tort or otherwise) arising from any third patty aCting or refraining from acting on any information - contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose,or store or copy the information in any medium. Copyright in this e~mail and attachments created by us belongs to the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority; the author also asserts the right to object to any misuse. **************************•********************************************

------\ This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MaiiMarshal )

~ :· . . ~ :.~ -: .

'1- ) Page 1 of2

Rudge, Thomas

From: David Dowden [[email protected]) Sent: 04 February 2011 14:33 To: Rudge, Thomas Cc: Tracy Cairns Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Dear Thomas

thank you for your scheme details ad highlighted below. There are no implications for·Bus services or routing issues and therefore Metro have no adverse comments on your proposals.

I trust is of use

David

) From: Rudge, Thomas [[email protected]) / Sent: 04 February 2011 11:12 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bellamy, Andrew: Buckley, James; Monks, Steven; David Dowden; Hamilton, Olr Martin; Matthews, Cllr Jamie; Monaghan, CUr James Subject: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Balnbrigge Road Safety Scheme Proposals Please find attached details of a proposed scheme for Bainbrigge Road, Headingley. This scheme aims to decre.ase the amount of killed or seriously injured accidents at this site. Recorded injury accidents atthis location shows 16 since January 2005 with 12 having an injury accident rathig atslight and 4 being serious. 10 of the accidents involved vehicles turning right into Bainbrigge Road acrossthe path of a pedal cycle in the cycle lane, typically whilst the cyclist was masked by queuing traffic. The propler'n typically occurs when traffic is queueing outbound along Headlngley lane, vehicles queueing giveway drivers waiting to turn right into Bainbrigge Road, usually without seeing the cyclists travelling in the cycle lane. As previous measures to highlight the cycle lane and warn both drivers and cyclists have not worked, the recommended solution is to ban the right turn into Brainbrigge Road.

This will be achieved by new kerbing works to narrow the junction and promoting a one way order for the -. seqtionof road. I wotild appreciate any comments within 14 days. .? Kind Regards, Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council {0113) 3951819

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately by return email. Please then delete the email and do not disclose its contents to any person.

Nothing In thls email amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of Metro unless confirmed by a written communication signed by or on behalf of the Assistant Director- Legal. Service of legal documents Is not accepted by email.

(10/()')/')f\ 1 1 Page 2 of2

Please note Metro does not accept liability for any damage or loss that may occur from software viruses and it is your responsibility to virus check this email and any attachments.

Metro is tha business name for West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority and Wast Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive . • !ltf: ffll ********•* .... ****** *•••***"** **111 11:11 ** •••** ·-···II•• *lilA** ft. ***A*ft ***"'** ••• 11111111***"*

. ;. · .·r ·.·

Rudge, Thomas

From: Sent: 08 February 2011 12:58 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Bainbrigge Road.

I am fully in favour of stopping RT turns into Bainbrigge Road.

Kind regards,

) /

09/01/?.011 Rudge, Thomas

From: Sent: ary To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

This is an excellent scheme. It has been a very dangerous junction to cross even as a pedestrian, as well for cyclists in the out bound cycle lane, so this will be definite improvement...long overdue.

'·

1 '

Simon

Think this should have come your way

Adi

PS 4827 A.P.Newman North West Leeds Roads Policing

50046int 0113 2395046 ext -----Forwarded by Adrian Newman/961254/POLICE/WYP on 11/02/201112:15

"Rudge, Thomas" , "[email protected]. uk" , "[email protected]" , "Bellamy, Andrew" , "Buckley, James" .. , "Monks, Steven" , "[email protected]" , "Hamilton, Cllr Martin" , "Matthews, Cllr Jamie" , "Monaghan, Cllr James" cc

Subject Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

2 t •

Rudge, Thomas

From: [email protected] Sent: 11 February 2011 14:34 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Fw: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme : NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Attachments: Bainbrigge Road.pdf

Tom,

re Bainbridge Road, West Yorkshire Police would have no objections to this proposed TRO . I would however request that the report to highways Board included details of whether stats identify this as the most serious collision location in that area. There are a number of similar locations that once this TRO is introduced may be lobied by extrenal cycling organisations for similar TRO's citing this as a precedence. In addition I would be grateful if you could include on the report to Highways board details of engineering proposals to assist with enforcement of the order.

Please circulate my details to your colleagues as I now have responsibility for Traffic management issues in Leeds and also liaison with highways and transportation departments. As from 04/04/2011 the Roads Policing structure in Leeds will change from 3 Divisional units to 1 Leeds unit, and as such I will be the main point of contact with west yorkshire police

regards Simon

Simon Hiles PS 2185 Leeds District Casualty Reduction Partnership Officer Roads Policing Department West Yorkshire Police Horsforth Police Station, 309 Broadway, Horsforth, Leeds West Yorkshire LS18 4SP

Telephone: 0113 2395046 0113 2395031 Internal Ext: 50046/ 50031 Mobile: -.e E-mail Address: [email protected] ----- Forwarded by Simon Hiles/900714/POLICE/WYP on 11/02/201113:44 -----

Adrian Newman/961254/POLICE/ WYP To Simon 11/02/201112:16 Hiles/900714/POLICE/WYP@WYP cc

Subject Fw: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme : NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 1 Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme Proposals ..

Please find attached details of a proposed stheme for Bainbrigge Road, Headingley. This scheme aims to decrease the amount of killed or seriously injured accidents atthis site. · · · · · · . : ...... Recorded injury accidents at this location shows 16 since January 2005 with 12 havingan injury accident rating at slight and 4 beingserious.-10 ofthe atcidents involvecl vehiclesturning right into Bainbrigge Road across the path of a pedal cycle in the cycle lane, typically whilst the cyclist was masked by queuing traffic.

As previous measures to highlight the cycle lane and warn both drivers and cyclists have not worked, the recommended solution is to ban the right turn into Brainbrigge Road.

This will be achieved by new kerbing works to narrow the junction and promoting a one way order for the section of road.

I would appreciate any comments within 14 days.

Kind Regards, Tom Rudge Trainee; i:qgineer Traffic Management- west city • Development Leeds City C:ci uneil (Oli3) 39S1819

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the

intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,

please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please

delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not acceptservice of legal documents by e-mail.

(See attached file: Bainbrigge Road.pdf) ------

LOCAL POLICE UPDATES: Use your postcode to read local news from your Neighbourhood Policing Team, and sign up forfree email updates, on http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/npt

3 \

This email carries a disclaimer, a copy of which may be read at http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/emaiiDisclaimer.asp

··.:

4 Rudge, Thomas

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 15 February 2011 10:59 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: Bainbrigge Road proposals

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

And one more

To: Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: Bainbrigge Road proposals

Dear James Monaghan,

Many thanks for your letter, dated 7 February 2011 , regarding proposed alterations to fhe junction of Bainbrigge Road with Headingley Lane.

)Having looked at what is proposed, this seems like an eminently sensible idea, and one highly likely to help both with the volume of traffic on Bainbrigge Ro ad and the associated road safety issues. I am broadly in sympathy with t he proposals.

1 Page 1 of 1

Rudge, Thomas

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 17 February 201113:33 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: Phone message from Peter Stevens, flat 2, 13 Bainbrigge Road

fyi

______, ______-- -·---..------·------__ , ______------From: Tyers, Gillian Sent: 16 February 201116:44 To: Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: Phone message from .. ..phoned in response to you letter re Bainbrigge Road. He thinks the solution you have come up with is qUite dangerous and wrong. He says emergency vehicles would have a long loop round to access the road. He believes and a 20 limit would be better. He ed from work

Gill Tyers, Support Assistant Liberal Democrat Group Office Leeds City Council Tel: 0113 2474580 Email: [email protected]

()0/()1/'1() 11 l Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 01 March 2011 15:15 To: Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: RE: -

Dear

Thank you for your comments regarding the Bainbrigge Road proposals.

To clarify, only the top section of Bainbrigge Road as shown on the plan will be one way only. This means that you will be able to turn left or right out of Bainbrigge Road onto Headingley Lane. Only the turning movements into Bainbrigge Road from Headingley Lane will be banned. Therefore refuse collection will enter by Cardigan Road and exit via Headingley Lane.

Spring Road and Bainbrigge Road are also Governed under an access only order, so between 4pm and 6:30pm, so traffic without a legitimate reason for access from Cardigan Road is prohibited. Spring Road is also access only from Headingley Lane during these times.

There are aspirations to construct the build-outs from stone flags and kerbs to match the existing on site. We are also looking at the possibility of a tree on one of the build-outs and also to remove some of the unnecessary street clutter, such as redundant poles, to make the scheme more aesthetically pleasing.

The main problem we have at this site; is queuing vehicles stopping at the box junction and oncoming drivers wanting to turn right into Bainbrigge Road doing so without giving way to cyclists. The measures already in place, signing to warn drivers of cyclists, and signing to warn cyclists of turning traffic have not worked, along with highlighting the cycle lane in red across the junction. Banning the turn into Bainbrigge Road solves the main accident problem at this junction.

I believe the traffic coming inbound that previously made the right turn down Bainbrigge Road will either turn right at the North Lane traffic lights or down St Michaels Road. For the outbound, left onto Victoria Road and onto Cardigan Road.

I do appreciate that this may cause minor inconvenience to yourselves and others, however I will not be making any amendments to the scheme at present.

When the scheme does go forward, you will be notified and are welcome to formally object to the proposals.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management -West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 14 February 201113:45 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: JM/JK

1 Next one, can you drop all these residents a n email responding to their c omments.

James

From: Sent: To: Mon~ Cllr James Subject-

Hello, we have just received your letter regarding the closing of Bainbrigge Road to traffic from Headingley Lane. completely

If we were not allowed to tum in and out of the street this would cause great inconvenience on a daily basis. The only other access beeing Cardigan Road which at the times when we need to travel are always completely blocked by traffic which often backs up both ways from the cricket · down to Kirstall Road. would have to ...,...... , our route onto very We could try going in and out of the bottom and up Spring Road, but this is even narrower than Bainbrigge Road and also goes past a school. 1 cannot see these proposals doing anything more than creating chaos as drivers will either then use Spring Road or have to go along Nm1h Lane and down Cardigan Road or along the tiny nan·ow streets at the other side of St Michaels Church. How will the refuse collectors be able to opperate ? They will have to drive up Bainbrigge Road and there is no where at all for them to turn round to go back down again> I presume the accidents are mainly caused by cyclists been hit by cars tuming right into bainbrigge Road, this is a problem as other drivers IN PARTICULAR BUSSES completely ignore the box junction so anybody turning right cannot see cyclists till the very last second. Another thing I notice is young people with headphones on who walk out into the road here without even

•vv.-... ·J ,Jt:. or left for traffic. the appearence of the beautiful street and surroundings, the nice views and graveyard. this will be destroyed by putting in modern looking new kerbs and bollards and no entry signs. I am · that a lot ofne

Please keep me informed any developements if you can. I would be absolutely devastated if this proposal went ahead.

•

2 Rudge, Thomas

From: Sent: To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: RE: Traffic flow, Headingley

Dear Tom, Thanks very much for your re I appreciate your comments I do welcome your proposed actions, particularly in the light of last month's tragedy in Heading ley. My concerns about the 'bigger picture' remain, but I also appreciate that you have to make priority decisions at a time of severe cut backs. I'm glad to hear that you will be monitoring the effects of traffic displacement and I hope you'll keep us informed of your findings from time to time. -Regards, From: Rudge, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 March 201115:10 To: - Subject: RE: Traffic flow, Headingley

-Thank you for your email regarding the Bainbrigge Road proposals. As I am sure you will appreciate, the main concern at the present time is the number and severity of cycle accidents at the junction of Bainbrigge Road and Heading ley Lane. Our aim there in to develop a scheme which reduces this conflict between cyclist and right turning vehicles. The proposals at the present time will address this conflict movement.

I agree with you concerns that traffic will be displaced, but where exactly and how this will affect residents is very subjective.

I am sure that some motorists will choose to turn right from the A660 at the North Lane signal junction, others will choose St Michaels Road/ Lane and others will possibly abuse the 'Access Only' order on Spring Road

However, due to the limited funding provision we have to justify each schemes expenditure on actual injury accidents and/ or environmental impact and therefore it is our intention to promote the Bainbrigge Road scheme and one · implemented we will monitor the numbers of displaced vehicles on the surrounding network and should evidence identify an issue, we will then use this evidential approach to seek funds at that time.

I trust the above explains the current position and our approach to your concerns.

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 14 February 201113:47

1 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: Traffic flow, Headingley

And another

Dear Councillors,

Thank for your letter outlining the proposed changes to the traffic system in Bainbrigge Road, Heading ley-

I very much welcome the plan, having experienced the frequent congestion and parking problems in last 10 years, and a one-way system as described would certainly ease the traffic flow.

However, we think that traffic wilt simply divert from Headingley Lane I Otley Road and use either St Michael's Road I St Michael's Lane as a rat run to Cardigan Road (both roads are congested with parked cars and it's very narrow at the top of St Michaels Lane) or- and this is a real concern- they will use Spring Road. This would increase the risks to young children attending Spring Bank School despite the existing speed limit and traffic calming measures in that road. And to be honest, as a driver, that's what I would do. I think we all would.

As all local residents know, the volume of traffic in Headingley has increased enormously, day and night, particularly in university term time, and we feel that a more comprehensive plan is needed. How about, for example, making St Michael's Lane, Bainbrigge Road and Spring Road No Entry in the same way, thus making traffic use the North Lane route to Cardigan Road?

Yes, It's a slightly more circuitous route, and it would shift the volume of traffic there, but at least North Lane is a mainly commercial road, and some o~re would be eased on the residential roads. Speaking selfishly, I say "yes please" to the proposed change~ but my preference would be for the bigger plan. We know this is a period of savage spending cuts, but since you are asking for opinions, this is ours.

I'd be grateful if you send any replies to my home email add -Regards,

2 J'age 1 ot 4

Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 08 March 2011 10:08 To: Subject: RE: Proposed Bainbrlgge Rd/Headingley Lane Alterations

Dear -

Thank you for your comments, which have been taken on board. When the scheme progresses, you will be updated of any major changes and will be welcome to formally object.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Sent: To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: Proposed Bainbri,flge Rd/Headingley Lane Alterations

Dear Mr Rudge

Thank you for your response to my email.

I beg to differ re your description of the inconvenience to me as minor- it will be substantial

There was no need to explain the problem, which I already fully appreciated. In fact I am sure your ) figures are a significant underestimate - I witnessed another example of precisely the type of accident you describe on the day before your email -fortunately, I think, without serious injury.

The question is why do so many cyclists ignore the danger, and what to do about it. I'm afraid I disagree with you on both counts.

You say the cyclists are not at fault. Of course they are. They are obviously not gbJjgeg to stop for turning vehicles, but to rely on this priority when unsighted would be madness. The real reason, however, is not deliberate assertiveness but momentary thoughtlessness, which however understandable (especially at the bottom of a hill) still contributes to fault.

They are not alone of course. Some of the right-turning vehicles also fail to realise the danger and proceed without due caution- but again there is absolutely nothing to remind them. except for the red cycle lane. How on earth can you call this an 'enhanced warning'? Given the need to avoid pedestrians and (often) parked and emerging traffic from Bainbrigge Rd it is hardly surprising that many right-turning drivers fail to see or appreciate the significance ofthe cycle lane.

09/01/?.0 11 The queuing drivers also contribute to the danger by not stopping well back from the junction, as required by the yellow 'box', thereby leaving only a narrow gap for the right-turning vehicles to negotiate.

It is perfectly obvious why accidents happen- now what about the 'what'.

You refer to incrementally introduced safety measures. There is absolutely nothing to remind cyclists of the danger. The red lane across the junction does the opposite if anything -lulling them into a false sense of security. Likewise the sign a few metres before the junction saying 'Turning traffic beware cyclists', presumably aimed at left-turning drivers. Of course measures to date have not been successful - they are pra ctically non-existent.

To then propose taking the giant leap from practically nothing to fully or partially closing the junction is ridiculous, especially when funding is limited. Measures of the type I mentioned in my email would involve negligible cost and woul_!:! be effective if applied intelligently ~n9 would avoid pushing a substantial amount of extra traffic onto the alternative routes, all of which are already problematic. They could also be replicated at the St Michael's Rd junction where a similar problem exists and would be made worse by your proposal. I I submit that you have a duty to try this alternative positive solution before wasting funds on the proposed negative one. If you need some (free) assistance with the details you have only to ask.

Yours sincerely

From: Rugg~ Thomas Sent: Friday, March 04, 201111:08 AM To: ..___ Sub~nbrigge Rd/Headingley Lane Alterations De a- ) I refer to your email dated 14th February 2011 in regards to the above, which has been forwarded for attention by your local ward Councillors.

The scheme as you have implied may seem to be excessive and will undoubtedly result in some minor inconvenience to some residents along Bainbrigge Road, but I would like to explain the history to this problem if I may, to better explain the accident problem.

The injury accident problem here is solely due where right turning vehicles from the A660 into Bainbrigge Road are in conflict with cyclists. This is caused when outbound traffic on the A660 queue past Bainbrigge Road, and certain drivers leave a gap for right turning motorists. The problem is that cyclist travelling outbound legitimately on the A660, downhill at this point are often masked by the queuing traffic and neither the cyclist travelling on the nearside of the queuing traffic or the right turning vehicles have a view of one another until it is too late.

There is a recognised accident problem at the Bainbrigge Road junction. 16 accidents have occurred in the last 5 years that have been caused by vehicles turning across the path of cyclists, of which 12 have resulted in slight injury accident rating and 4 have resulted in a serious injury accident rating

Improvement measures have been introduced incrementally over the last decade, form the introduction of a

09/01/2011 Page:; ot 4

cycle lane, to highlight the high cycle usage along this corridor, to improved signing and red surfacing across key junction to forewarn motorists, but unfortunately these have been unsuccessful.

It is unrealistic to stop the cyclist prior to junction with Bainbrigge Road as this would remove the enhanced warning to the right turning motorists. It is not the cyclists who are at fault here, but the right turning vehicles who are unknowingly turning in the a possible conflict situation, caused by the queuing traffic masking legitimate and legal cyclists.

Therefore the only option to stop this ongoing conflict point is to either introduce a 'one way' system as proposed or physically close the junction to motor vehicles. The second option we consider to be not warranted and would create additional complications to residents and the refuge collection service.

II am sure that some motorists will chose to turn right from the A660 at the North Lane signal junction, others will chose St Michael's Road/ Lane and other will possibly abuse the 'Access Only' order on Spring Road.

Due to limited funding provision we have to justify scheme expenditure on actual injury accidents and/ or environmental impact and therefore it is our intention to promote the Bainbrigge Road/ Headingley Lane scheme and once implemented we will monitor the numbers of displaced vehicles on the surrounding network and should evidence identify an issue, we will then use this evidential approach to seek funds for further measures at that time.

'] I trust the above explains the current position and our approach to your concerns/ request.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 15 February 2011 10:58 To: Rudge, Thomas J Subject: FW: Proposed Bainbrigge Rd/Headingley Lane Alterations

Anoth er one

From Sent: 14 February 2011 23:21 To: Monaghan, Cllr James; Hamilton, Cllr Martin; Matthews, Cllr Jamie Subject: Proposed Bainbrigge Rd/Headlngley Lane Alterations

Dear Councillors

Thank you for the consultation on the above proposal, with which I ~tr<~.ngly 9isagree.

and frequently drive into it from Headingley Lane, both left and right, so it would be a considerable personal inconvenience. I would obviously use Spring Rd or St Michaels Lane inst ead, at least until these too are restricted, which would be inevitable, then St Michaels Rd and North Lane. All these routes are thoroughly undesirable and detrimental t o

()0 frl') '"' (\ 1 1 .t'age '+ or '+ •

residents, and the proposal will obviously increase the danger to cyclists at these other junctions. The only accident of the type described that I have actually witnessed was at the top of St Michaels Rd.

If the safety of cyclists is real!v. the reason for it, then the proposal is a dreadful and expensive overkill (if you will forgive the expression)- the problem is real but should be attacked directly. The cycle lane should be stopped short of Bainbrigge Rd (not highlighted across it as now), with much clearer warnings to cyclists in the form of a rumble strip and large lettering on the lane surface. The yellow 'box' should be extended up to the kerb. Any cyclists who then still don't recognise the problem are doomed anyway since they will encounter numerous greater dangers elsewhere. Signag e for right-turning motorists is largely a waste of time since they simply cannot see up t he cycle lane past a lorry or bus. The primary responsibility In this situation lies with the cyclists. Please note I am no! anti-cycli

If the real reason for the proposal is to make Bainbrigge Rd one-way (which it would practically be since the bulk of the traffic is passing through) then this should be made clear. I would still oppose it. I am obviously aware of the congestion in Bainbrigge Rd, and suffer from it, but it probably represents the least of all evils. I have long been surprised that parking has not been restricted to ") one side only, or at least restricted at the top end, but assumed that this was because it would be considered an encouragement to 'rat running'. The fact is that Bainbrigge Rd is a useful and valuable link in the local road system and its closure or restriction will simply push traffic onto other unsuitable or already congested routes. -Regards

)

-~·

OCJ/01/?011 Page 1 of2

Rudge, Thomas

From ~ Sent: 09 March 2011 13:20 To: Rudge,Thomas Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road

Mr Rudge

You do not have to explain the mealng of an access only street, In addition how many people do you think realistically take notice of the slgnage regarding access only. Unless you live on the street I suggest you enquire to how many use the street as a throughfare. Assumptions simply dont cut it.

Regards

) )

From: Thomas.Ru To: Date: +0000 Subject: RE: Balnbrlgge Road

·-Thank you for your email regarding the proposals on Bainbrigge Road. Bainbrigge Road is an access only street from Cardigan Road between 4pm-6:30pm. This means that only people with a legitimate reason (i.e to access property) may enter the street.

Due to this I believe there will not be problem of queuing traffic from the junction.

) For the reasons explained above, I will not be making any amendments to the scheme at present. ) When the scheme does go forward, you will be notified and are welcome to formally object to the proposals.

Yours Sincerely.

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development • Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 14 February 2011 13:48 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: Bainbrigge Road

And another

()Q/()1/')()1 1 Page 2 of2

From: Sent: 10 ry 2011 To: Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: Bainbrigge Road

Dear James,

I am writing to you pertaining to the road alterations on the Bainhr·lnn'o pra,po!sed In your letter dated 7 February 2011. If the changes go ahead, there will be long queues backing up down bainbrlgge road as onto head lane are always slow due to the volume of traffic. This means that myself will be disadvantaged and will have walt long periods of time just to is an outrage!

and know that the signage along Headingley lane approaching Bai roa not uate enough. I believe it will cause less controversy making better use of signage for both cyclists and motorists. In many cases it is cyclist going to fast and not paying attention to the traffic. ) Thank you

The Information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the Information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

) ) rag~; J u1 't .. Rudge, Thomas

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 09 March 2011 16:41 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: RE: [activists] Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme Think this should have gone to as the

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 09 March 201115:12 To: activists-bou nces@headingley .org Cc: Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: RE: [activists] Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Dear

I refer to your email dated 11th February 2011 in regards to the above, which has been forwarded for }attention by your local ward Councillors.

The scheme as you have implied will undoubtedly result in some minor inconvenience to some residents along Bainbrigge Road, but I would like to explain the history to this problem if I may, to better explain the accident problem.

The injury accident problem here is solely due to a conflict between vehicles turning right off the A660 into Bainbrigge Road and cyclists travelling along the A660. This is caused when outbound traffic on the A660 queues past Bainbrigge Road, and certain drivers leave a gap for right turning motorists. The problem is that cyclists travelling outbound on the A660, downhill at this point are often masked by the queuing traffic and neither the cyclist travelling on the nearside of the queuing traffic or the right turning vehicles have a view of one another until it is too late.

This has resulted in a specific accident problem at the Bainbrigge Road junction. 16 injury accidents have occurred in the last 5 years that have involved vehicles turning across the path of cyclists. 12 resulted in 'slight' injury accident rating and 4 have resulted In a 'serious' injury accident rating. Injury- accidents are rated by the police as 'slight', 'serious' or 'fatal'

Improvement measures have been introduced incrementally over the last decade, from the introduction of a cycle lane, to highlight the high cycle usage along this corridor, to improved signing and red surfacing Jacross key junction to forewarn motorists, but unfortunately these have been unsuccessful, in reducing the accident rate.

Therefore the only options available at the present time to stop this ongoing conflict point is to either introduce a 'one way' system as proposed or physically close the junction to motor vehicles. The second option we consider to be not warranted and would create additional complications to residents and the refuse collection service.

I am sure that some motorists will choose to turn right from the A660 at the North Lane signal junction, others will choose St Michael's Road/ Lane or Spring Road. I would suggest that outbound traffic will travel down Victoria Road from Hyde Park Comer, onto Cardigan Road. Once the scheme is implemented we will monitor the numbers of displaced vehicles on the surrounding network and should evidence identify an issue, we will then use this evidential approach to seek funds for further measures at that time.

In response to your idea about raising pavements and speed tables, this is not an option we are able consider at the present time. This suggestion would require extensive works to widen the existing footpaths, alter drainage runs and the relocation of sign poles and lighting columns. In addition there would also be th e need to relocate a bus shelter to such a position so that passengers, pedestrians and cyclists are not in conflict along this shared surface.

07/03/2013 I would have similar concerns about cyclist/ pedestrian conflict along the whole length, given that both modes of transport are very popular. I need to put the proposal in a financial context as well Traffic Management have .\ received a brief to promote a scheme to remove the conflict at the junction and to consider some other minor cycling improvement in the locality for a very limited fixed sum. The brief has been prepared by our colleagues in Transport Planning in conjunction with Road Safety and the cycling team. We have identified some minor additional funding based on maintenance of the highway.

Due to the recent financial climate, our budgets have been cut heavily and we simply cannot justify a more extensive scheme when our proposed scheme is considered to address the main accident problem. Having talked the scheme through with ward members, there are aspirations to construct the build-outs from stone flags and kerbs to match the existing on site. We are also looking at the possibility of a tree on one of the build-outs and also to remove some of the unnecessary street clutter, such as redundant poles, to make the scheme less visually intrusive and more aesthetically pleasing.

I trust the above explains the current position and our approach to your concerns/ request.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Monaghan, Cllr James Sent: 14 February 2011 13:31 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: [activists] Balnbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Tom/ Thomas, (l et me know which you pre fer)

Some early f eedback for you - more to come

James

From: activists-bounces@headingley .org [mallto:actlvists-bounces@headingley .org] On Behalf Of Sent: 11 February 2011 23:41 To: Matthews, Cllr Jamie Cc: activists Subject: [activists] Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme )

· Hi Jamie,

I'm writing on behalf of the Headingley Renaissance Group and the [embryonic] Bainbrigge Road group within Headingley Network and would certainly like to be involved in this consultation. It may be hard to find a perfect solution, but I feel sure that something better than the attached first draft can be achieved by slightly expanding the focus of attention.

Points to bear in mind include:

The use of Bainbrigge Rd as a rat-run between Headingley Lane and Cardigan Road has Increased tremendously in recent years. It has become the cut-though of choice for emergency services as well as buses and HGVs. Drivers wishing to avoid the North Lane bottle-neck use one of 3 cut-throughs. Spring Rd has been traffic-calmed and this seems to work quite well. St Michael's Road has a natural pinch-point mid-way which acts as a deterrent and is not accessible to eastbound traffic. This leaves Bainbrigge Rd as the best choice.

has made the observation that St Michael's Rd at the War Memorial (already a pig of an intersection for pedestrians, cyclists and cars) will become the right turn of choice for rat-runners if Bainbrigge Road becomes unavailable.

07/03/201 3 " .1age j or<+ Reducing the danger to cyclists by preventing right turning motorists, will only solve part of the problem and create new problems for motorists who live on these streets ... and who, in the main, are alert to cyclists. [What circuitous route would we residents have to take to enter Bainbrigge Road from the north?)

Bainbrigge Rd has become very neglected in recent years: - The northbound "access only" period in the evening rush hour is never enforced - The road is used as a parking area by shoppers and park-and-riders catching the bus into town -There are no defined "passing areas" along the road and thus stand-offs between motorists are frequent and often very unpleasant -The yellow "no parking" lines at the Headingley Lane end are so short that cars can, and do, park right up to the corner · · -The yellow box on Headingley Lane is badly positioned ... and all but invisible. -The cycle Jane is at best, a poor concession to cyclists who have to cope with cars parking on it with complete immunity. - Both the cycle lane and the sign warning motorists to "beware of cyclists when turning right" are practically invisible. - Motorists are frequently in a rage when they approach Headingley Lane (from Bainbrigge Rd), presenting further danger to cyclists

Back in 2007, the Renaissance Group developed a number of proposals, including one for the War Memorial area, which were to be funded by the Town & District Centre bid. We looked at the best ways of allowing cyclists and pedestrians to move freely and safely along one of the busiest roads in Leeds. One solution is to raise the cycle lane (to the level of the pavement) from (at least) Spring Road to the Skyrack ... and allow both the raised pavement and cycle lane to have priority at all3 intersections. This would make it clear to motorists, as they went up and over the platform, that they were entering the domain of the cyclist and · pedestrian, and not the other way round. ) I think it is important to involve the most affected members of the community (the residents -cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists ) as well as all appropriate Council Depts and representatives of the Police (enforcement) and emergency services (access).

Please see what you can do to engage community involvement from the outset. .. And not, as is so often the case, simply as a rubber-stamp once the grown-ups have decided what's best for uslll

All best wishes, ~Network Headingley Renaissance Resident Bainbrigge Road

----- Original Message ---- From: Matthews. Cllr Jamie To: [email protected] ;sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:38 AM Subject: [activists) FW: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

Dear all

Please see below and attached a proposal for Bainbrigge Road. This is the very first consultation which includes the ambulance and emergency services initially before going on to consult local residents. I thought It would be useful for everyone to get an early look.

Jamie

Councillor Jamie Matthews Headingley Ward

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 04 February 2011 11:12 To: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Bellamy, Andrew; Buckley, James; Monks, Steven; [email protected]; Hamilton, Cllr Martin; Matthews, Cllr Jamie; Monaghan, Cllr James Subject: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

07/03/2013 Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme Proposals Please find attached details of a proposed scheme for Bainbrigge Road, Headingley. This scheme aims to decrease the amount of killed or seriously injured accidents at this site. Recorded injury accidents at this location shows 16 since January 2005 with 12 having an injury accident rating at slight and 4 being serious. 10 of the acCidents involved vehicles turning right into Bainbrigge Road across the path of a pedal cycle in the cycle lane, typic:~!IY wnHstthe cyctis(was.masked by queuing traffjc. .. ·< ·· ...· The problem typically oQgljrS .,V{h~n tra-tflg i~ queu~ir'lg 9ytbound ~l()ng ·He(;idingley)ane, \.l~hicles q~~yeing gJye Vlay drivers l,hlaitlng . ~o turn rigbtlnto ~~lD.btJgg~ ;:Road, ysually withqut seeing the cyclists trc:welling in thetycle ' lane ~ . As previotlSltleasures to highlight tlie'cycle'lane andwan1 both drivel-s and'cyclistshave networked, thei;e conihten~ed .. solution is .to ban theright tum into .BrairiJ>rlgg~ Road. · · · · ·· · ~-:··:.; ·. .''·:;~.- ·<::;:.~-- ·:·.:. -:·._. : :· ·: -:·= :'- ··-.::c::· .~--··. .: :·:_;, .

Tl~is willi~~ ~ch~eyed by new kerbin~ 'V.orks !qnan:~w the junctio11 nnd prompthw ~one way orderfot}he secHon _.<>~rp~d. I would•-apprec1ate any commentsw1thln 1~days. -. - .. ·•.· . .·· ...... · ...... -· Kind RegafC!s, .. · ·· · ·.·. ·. ' ··· ·._... ··· ·... -·. ···· ·. · · · · · · · .. . . TC>rn Rudg~"' Trainee E.n9irieer TraffiCManagement - West City Deve-lopment Leeds City Council (0113) 3951819

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the Intended recipient oniy. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the Information In ariy way a~d please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. ) The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

This eMailing list is provided by the Headingley Community web site www.headingley.org. To posUtniessage to alll07 · n1en.1~e~·s, ·Yl11~il activists@h,e~diqgley.org. To unsubscribe, you can change youi:

No virus found in this incoming message. i ·:·. .

Checked by A VG - www.avg.com . ,,: _::. :: Version: 9.0.872 I Virus Database: 271.1.113428- Release Date: 02/07/11 07:34:00 . ·•

: .·.

07/03/2013 Page 1 of3

Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 25 October 2011 13:33 To: Macleod, Gillian SIJbject: RE: A660 Cycling Safety Measures Gillian,

Yes they will be included as well.

Regarding Shire Oak Street, we are only taking around 40Dmm from the footway outside houses ·1 Oa, 12 and 14. We feel thatsight lines will notpe severely affected from t~is. This is required for us to implement a cycle lane outbound from Leeds to match the existing inbound one. · · · · · · ··

We have considered the effect ofServicevehicles blocking the cycle lane, therefore we wiiL_be.looking to replace theexistiQg single yellow linewith a no waitlQgat any time restriction. Thiswill'mean the length from the Sky rack junction to North Lane will be NWAAT on both sides. ·

Thanks,

Tom Rudge Trainee Engineer Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds Ci_ty ,CounCil (0113) 2477581

,~ .

~re!11: Ma_cleodrGJIIia.n sent: ·2S'October 201113:08 To: Rudge, thomas; Robertson, Gordon Cc: <)wen, .Gwyn; Hall, Andrew (Transport) Subject:-RE: A660 Cycling Safely Measures

Tom,

) Please\,~ill .you > en~G~e my comrilents are covered in ybur rep6rt too.

"Has any assessment been made of traffic re-distribution!() support the propos~d clo~ure of.Bainbrigge Road? This is a popular route at peak times. Whilst the proposed ban will remove the conflict with cyclists it will also inconvenience residents andpush through motqrists onto otherroutes which should be identified. With access only orders and peak hour bans on most(if not all) other links b¢tween - Headingley Lane and Cardigan Road the signals at North Lane shoLild be assessedto see if they can take the extra load.

Regarding the Shire Oak Street proposal -this would appear to reduce the sight lines at a junction which already has poor visibility. Is the carriageway widening necessary when there is already an advisory cycle lane here? In 2.5 when you mention provision of an outbound cycle lane is this outbound from Leeds or Heading ley? If the cycle lane is on the opposite side of the road from Shire Oak $treet (not shown on the plan) then thi~ would still be regularly blocked by service vehicles which park on the single yellow lines outside the restricted hours of Bam- 9.15am and 4.30-6.30pm".

Regards

Gillian MacLe.od Transport Development Services Manager (Acting) Leeds City Council Page 2 of3

0113 39 51341

From: Rudge1 Thomas Sent: 25 October 201112:54

To: Robertson1 Gordon

Cc: Owen1 Gwyn; Hall1 Andrew (Transport); Macleod1 Gillian Subject: A660 Cycling Safety Measures

Gordon

We have considered and debated the possible displacement of vehicl~s by the introduction of the point closure as part of this scheme with both local residents· and Ward Members. ·

As I an)sure yguwill appreciate it is not possible to predict where the motorist who at the present time drive down B~linbrigge road will migrate to ana whaV if anyproblemthis may create. I did do some surveys during the evening peak period to give me some indication'of the numbers involved and after weighing up the disadvantages and advantages, it was considered that the road safety scheme to address the No 1 cycle injury site in the Leeds district should still be progressed.

I accept that some motorist may choose to drive down St Micheals Road to the signalised junction near to Headingley Stadium, but onsite observation shows that this junction works well and it is only really affected by traffic demand on match days.

It may be that some motorist may choose to drive down Spring Road, but this is already governed by a . 'Prohibited Vehicles' order which bans vehicles Mon- Fri (4pm- 6:30pm) except for access. Also this ~ road is traffic calmed and given the low vehicle movement, it should not create a problem.

It may be that some motorist choose to find a totally different route altogether to get to their ultimate destination,but as we are unable to determine this and given the low numbers involved, we do not feel that this will create a prOblem irdhe locality.

I thank you for your observations and will report your concerns and my assessment within _the Highway sbard report for consideration. , ,

,,·. .. ::_· ·. Yours Sincerely

Tom Rudge

PS, below is vehicle numbers for yesterday evening to give. you some indication of the numbers involved, ._.) following your conversation with Nick · ., · ·

Turning Movemen~ into Bainbrigge Road

... ·.- Time Period .-, No. of left turners from No. of right turners ... · . > Leeds

4- 4:15pm 0 17

4:15 ;_4:30pm 2 22

4:30-4:45 3 28

4:45-5:00 0 13 I Page I of3 j / Rudge, Thomas

From: Robertson, Gordon Sent: 28 October 2011 11:36 To: J · R~d~~. 'n~g~as Subject: RE: A66Q Cycling Safety Measures Ji~andLareme~ting Monday 11-11.30 here in Merrion (also meeting with Udo). Any chanceyoVcould come' here before or after that? Before is better for me as I need to be away by 12.3p •. . .. . ~· .,·· · · .., .

GordonRobertson utMc .. -:: ....,, .,, .d·· ·~~~riJ1ariager,~~--:·~ _,.,,,, "'""···: -.-::,:·· .' . . -_- . .· . Urban Tra'fficJv1anagement & Control Leeds City' Council Phone 0113 24 76753

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: Fri 28 Oct 2011 11:06 To: Robertson, Gordon Subject: RE: A660 Cycling Safety Measures

) Gordon,

Me and Nick are free all day Monday, Thursday and Friday if you and Jim are free any time then, I can't seem to se~ peoples availability on my Outlook.

. .: ~ : ·..

~. . . : ·. ;,: / Many Thanks,

.·,· · : , : · .· ·: .. ·- .· +?aTn·~¥~~\iA~~r .·.. ·· : .,·, · Traffic Man~ge111ent - West : : ". City. Pe\IE::!!PPITI~nt Leeds Cif ;couh'cil ····.·.·· · :. · · . :- .: . "< ;·.- · :· .: ::_ _::: ? :·: (d113)' 24~75M • ,. · . . _: . ( : .. ··. - . -·- : · ':. · ··- : ' •': : . : .-.-.. .·

·- . -': · ·.· . · - _ _ .·.:. .._:::. ·' :

.: .: ..... : .:.~~ . .· : . . . ::·: .'. . ' : : .

) Fr~rn: p.obertson, Gordon sent: 26 'OctOoef!2tJH>og :41 : ; " ioiRudge, Thomas Cc: Owen, Gwyn; Hall, Andrew (Transport); Macleod, Gillian Subject: RE: A660 Cycling Safety Measures

Thanks for the counts. Big enough to be of concern, though not big enough to be prohibitive.

Given th~ concer~s' here.could we.have a meeting please (including Jim Buckley) to discuss the wording in the report · · · ·

I am not necessarily against the scheme, but am concerned that the implications should be fully considered.

There are only 3 alternative routes, so I think one can predict where traffic will go

100 vehicles down Spring road between 3-4pm will be a problem The right turn at north lane has no capacity- and the queues on Headingley Lane outbound are considerable. If the 1oo veh go down St Michaels' Lane they are likely to find themselves in an increasing queue (though I've not checked the current flow here). This conflicts with Cardigan Road, which is the

I?() 11 Page 2 of 3

alternative used by outbound traffic avoiding Headingley Lane.

You mention match days- the effect should be quantified for the report. The Stadium paid for the St Michaels/Cardigan signals and they may not be pleased!

So I think we need an agreed statement on the consequences so Board can make an informeddecision and . when we g~t complaints we can say the issues were fully considered ···· .· ·

·: : -."'·.· ·.. ·. Gordon Robertson uTf0c'.rV1ana9er'· ,.• _·._ ..• .· - _ .-..·._ .... :·:. - .. ·. • :•:- . :_! · ·_.• ,. ._ Urbe:m Traffic Management & Control Le~ds CitY Council · Phone 0113 24 76753

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: Tue 25 Oct 2011 12:54 To: Robertson, Gordon Cc: Owen, Gwyn; Hall, Andrew (Transport); Macleod, Gillian Subject: A660 Cycling Safety Measures

Gordon

We have considered and debated the possible displacement of vehicles by the introduction of the point closure as part of this scheme with both local residents and Ward Members. . : .. · . . ~ . . . . ; . As I am sure you will appreciate it is not possible to predict where the motorist who at the present time drive down Bainbrigge road will migrate to and what/ if any problem this may create. I did do some surveys during th~ ~vening peak period to give me some indication of tile numbers involved and after weighing up the disa'dvantages and advantages, it was considere9 that the road safety scheme to address the No 1 cycle injury site inthe Leeds district should still be progressed.

I acceptthat some.motoristmay choose to drive down St Micheals Road to the signalised junction oearto Hea~jngleyStaciium, - ~u'tonsite observation shows that this junction works well and it is only ~~ally ,~lfecS~d by traffic demand on 'match days. ' ' .·... · ' ·.. .. ' ~ ~ ~- ·,_ . -. . - .· ·. . . ( It ry1ay be that some .motorist may choose to drive down Spring Roa(j, b~t this is already goy~rn_~~ b~i ~' > ·· 'Prohibited Vehicles' ordefwhich bans vehicles Mon-,. Fri (4pm- 6:30pm) except for access. Also.thisroad'is trafficCalmed an~ given the low vehicle movement, it should not create a problem. ·......

It may be the1t some motorist choose to find a totally different route altogether to get to their ultimate de.stination, bufas we are unable to determine this and given the low numbers involved, we do not feel that this will c reate · ~ · problerri in.thelocallty. . ) ~ :. ' :-· :" . . .. " .. ·: ~. :; ::. I thank you for your observations and will report your concerns and my assessment within the_Mighway Board. report for consideration. ·

Yours Sincerely ... ~· :

Tom Rudge

PS, belowis vehicle numbers for yesterday evening to give you some indication of the nurnbers involved, following yourconversatiori with Nick · · · · ·

Turning Movements into Bainbrigge Road

Time Period No. of left turners from No. of right turners Leeds

4- 4:15pm 0 17 Page 3 of3

4:15- 4:30pm 2 22

4:30-4:45 - 3 28

4:45-5:00 0 13

5-5:15 2 25

5:15 - 5:30 7 16

5:30-5:45 1 ,. 21

5:45-6 3 18

Totals 18 160

)

Rudge, Thomas

From: Merckel, Andy Sent: 12 March 2013 12:16 To: 'Greg Mulhollands Office' Cc: CD Highways Cllrs and MPs; Rudge, Thomas Subject: FW: COUNCILLOR/MP LEDER- FOR REPLY (CR265798) Attachments: 265798 Page l.pdf; 265798 Page 2.pdf; RE Proposed Movement Restrictions at Junction of Bainbrigge Road with A660 Headingley Lane.htm

Dear Mr Mulholland

- has been in direct contact with the scheme engineer and I have corresponded with him in the last few days. I have attached a copy of that correspondence for your information, which gives the background to the scheme and information on how I am responding t~ concerns and questions.

I trust that this information is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely

Andy Merckel Senior Engineer Traffic Management West Highways & Transportation 30 Ring Road Middleton LEEDS, LS10 4AX

Tel: 011 3 2477555

From: CD Highways CUrs and MPs Sent: 12 March 2013 12:00 To: Merckel, Andy Subject: COUNOLLOR/MP LETTER- FOR REPLY (CR265798)

Andy

Attached is a letter from Greg Mulholland MP for reply in accordance with Correspondence Protocol of 10 working days. A full reply should be sent by 25 March.

If you cannot reply in full by the shown date, you should send a meaningful acknowledgement within 5 working days, giving a contact name and telephone number, as much detail as possible as to why a full reply cannot be provided and stating the specific date on which a reply will be sent.

Could you please ensure that all responses to Councillors/MP's containing promises of work to be carried out, have approximate dates included in your response.

Please send a copy of the reply to CD Highways, quoting the CR number above.

Julie For the CD Highways Team 0 '

HOUSE OF COMMON Highways LONDO 1'\ SW' I A OAA Leeds City Council Civic Hall Calverley Street Leeds LSI lUR

I am writing on behalf of one of my constituents, - of the above address. They recently contacted me and I would like to make enquiries on their behalf. I have enclosed a copy of email in which he expresses his concerns about a traffic management which work is due to begin on, on Monday 11th March 201 3. • s feel like they haven't been kept well-informed about such work, would like to know the decision making process behind the scheme.

I would be grateful if you could look into this matter

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely .

Greg Mulholland MP Member of Parliament for Leeds North West

Whilst Greg Mu lholland MP will treat us conlidential any personul information which you pass on. he will nonnally allow stair nnd authorised volunteers to sec it if this is needed to help and advise you. All or sorne of this infom1ation nuty he passed on to agencies such as the DWP. HMRC or the local Council if this is necessary to help with yuur case. Greg Mulholland MP rnay wish to write to you frorn time to time to keep you informed on issues which you may find of interest. Please let him know if you do not wish to he contacted for this purpose.

Please reply to Constituency Office Wainwright House, J2 Holt Park Centre, Holt Road, Leeds, LSI6 7SR Tel: OJ 13 226 6519 Fax: OJ J3 267 2237 E-mai l: [email protected]: www.gregmulholland.org Twitter: @gregm ulholl and I Hi there, wonder if you can help ? we have today received a letter to tell us they are starting work on Monday 11th march with a traffic management scheme, the only previous correspondence was back i n f eb 2011 f rom Councillor James Monaghan a s ki ng for r esidents views. I have today tal ked to Thomas Rudge who s I so couldnt object , who all thought the thought the whole thing forgotten till the letters landed today informing us of the work to be started on Monday. Mr Rudge says there was not enough objection but will not reveal any evidence to this to me. I feel the alternative access to my home and the offered routes to traffic that uses our street to get from Headingley Lane to Cardigan Road are nowhere near efficient for the volumes of traffic to use, and one of them runs past a primary school ! General f e eli ng with the resident s is this could all be sorted out with a few well placed signa as the only r~ason for the scheme is because it is an accident spot for cyclists running into turning traffic. I would really appreciate your prompt reply, and if you cant help then maybe you could · of Thanking you in anticipat Rudge, Thomas

From: Merckel, Andy · Sent: 11 March 2013 16:15 To: Cc: Rudge, Thomas; Claxton, Howard; Hunt, Nicholas Subject: RE: Proposed Movement Restrictions at Junction of Bainbrigge Road with A660 Headingley Lane

Dear -

Thank you for your prompt response. I hope that I am demonstrating that this scheme is not being puslleu forward on a whim, but has been thought about in some detail. We are fully aware that we can affect the daily lives of those who live in the vicinity of schemes such as this, but also that we need to keep the reasons for the scheme - accident reduction- in mind as well. I've talked through your concerns with our Senior Road Accident Investigation Officer and would offer the following information in response to the points you have made.

You are, of course, correct in that drivers who currently use Bainbrigge Road to travel from the A660 to Cardigan Road will seek alternative routes. With all schemes where habitual routes are disrupted there is a settling down period whilst drivers establish new patterns. That can be a difficult time, but is for a temporary period only. New traffic patterns will include Spring Road and St Michael's Road/Lane, but may also move some drivers onto routes further afield as they re-establish journey patterns that are comfortable to them. Spring Road has a 20mph limit on it with accompanying traffic calming features. It is narrow nearest the A660 and is possibly a much less 'inviting' route than the alternatives. At the beginning and end of the school day it will be a very unattractive route for through traffic due to the school related traffic already there (incidentally, this scheme is also providing a 'No Stopping' order on the school zig-zag markings and a new disabled bay near th e school, taking advantage of the legal process to keep costs down). For a new road layout we place permanent signing where necessary and also use the red/white temporary signs to advise drivers of the change.

As well as migration of traffic to alternative routes, there may be some movement of accidents. However, that is unlikely to be in proportion to the traffic migration. One of the main factors in accidents is the environment. Both Spring Road and St Michael's Road have better visibility than Bainbrigge Road in terms of right-turning drivers/cyclists. There have been injury accidents involving cyclists at those junctions, but far fewer that at Bainbrigge Road. With any scheme of this nature, Accident Studies monitor the effects into the future. In this case, the monitoring area would extend to North Lane, Cardigan Road and Victoria Road so that any accident pattern changes could be detected.

There are three signs advising drivers/riders of the potential for conflict at the junction, two on the outbound side and one on the inbound side. The yellow box junction is also extended towards the city side to encourage drivers to leave an extended gap to improve visibility for/of cyclists. In line with national good practice, the cycle lane is surfaced in a red material across the junction - aimed at highlighting the junction to cyclists and the cycle lane to drivers. Despite this, the accident pattern remains. The main accident mechanism is where a driver turns right into Bainbrigge Road through queuing traffic using the gap afforded by the box marking. Drivers seem to concentrate on the fact that the queuing vehicles have stopped and make their move without recognising that cyclists are travelling down the cycle lane, often at relatively high speeds (I have personal experience of this, as a driver, when the cyclist suddenly appeared despite that fact that I was aware of the issue and was being vigilant - fortunately a collision was avoided). I have to offer my professional opinion that no amount of signing at this location will improve the existing situation. The encroachment into the box junction can only decrease visibility and increase the potential for conflict and is indicative of some drivers' lack of respect for the rules of the road . I'm happy to raise your specific concern regarding bus drivers with Metro - I consider that as professional drivers they should be leading by example ...

I'd be grateful for any further thoughts you have on this matter. If it would do th at. I am conscious of the reasons for ur stance on this matter.

ume traffic on Bainbrigge Road would decrease sig Whilst I am happy to take the matter to Highways Board for their final decision, and I have made our Head aware of the current position, my stance remains that I would recommend to the Board that objections be over-ruled to allow the scheme to progress. I would be grateful if you could state wh eth er you are prepared to withdraw your objection , or whether you wish me to report it to Highways Board for their decision. I

1 apologise that this is, perhaps, a little blunt, but I need to be clear in my intentions and move the scheme forward. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to ask.

Regards

Andy Merckel Senior Engineer Traffic Management West Highways & Transportation 30 Ring Road Middleton LEEDS, LS10 4AX

Tel: 0113 2477555 •

From: Sent: 10 March 2013 18:52 To: Merckel, Andy Subject: Re: Proposed Movement Restrictions at Junction of Bainbrigge Road with A660 Headingley Lane

Thanks for the response Andy, I am really torn over this, i think what i am most upset about is if the road was closed the problem is just going to be shifted to the junctions of Spring Road and st Michaels. And the fact there is the entrance to the school on Spring road too. I accept the reasons the decision was made but cannot accept that it will not just push the problem elsewhere and possibly make other problems with traffic congestion, confusion and drivers getting annoyed and angry trying to get where they are going when the traffic is heavy, this whole area is difficult to negotiate in rush hoill' conditions as it is. I have been having a good look round and really think better signage etc on the main road is the best way forward, the signage is very poor with as far as i can see just one small sign asking drivers to beware of cyclists, but its in a position where drivers can only see it if they were in stationary traffic in the opposite side of the road to where warning should be. the problem is actually drivers encroaching into the box junction, they simply dont seem to notice its there even. The main culprits are bus drivers who pull right into the junction in queuing traffic to pull up at the bus shelter straight after the junction. Can they be educated in some way, i personally when walking past the bus stop have got on busses and talked to several drivers but they shrug their shoulders in indifference usually !

On 8 March 2013 15:45, Merckel, Andy wrote: Dear -

Further to correspondence and conversations with Traffic regarding your concerns over the proposals for the Bainbrigge Road/Headingley Lane junction I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of actions taken in the last few days and the proposed course of future action regarding this matter. I apologise if I am repeating some things that you are already aware of.

The works have been put on hold. No physical works will be carried out at the location until the matter has been resolved. You may see new notices closing the road under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. This is a temporary closure applied for to allow the works to be undertaken and will not be used unless works are carried out.

I have looked back through the scheme file and reviewed progress.

2 The.background ofthe scheme is that the junction of Bainbrigge Road with the A660. Headingl~y Lane junction is currently ranked 29 in the annuai 'Sites for Concern' report. It is the worst in 't~e ·· City in terms·of cyClist injuries. It h'as featur¢d regularly in th~ fep()rtover the last decacje. · lnJhe ti\/e y~arperiod Jan2007 to Dec2011, the l9testJigur~s pnth~jun9tion, there Wer~JB · rec,ol"qed . ·. i!Jj~ry- acpidebt$c:t(tn~I66C\tion,thre. ~ · orVJhichr~~LIIt~c:lininjllri.es· ¢itxcia.ss~riqli~J? -th~p6Jip# ..... , feppri ..J.\IIbyt2 C)fthe accidents

·.ToS\>i 'her With .. oth~i .. i~d~tions o~•· ttJg· _A6ijtl ··;0iric!br, · Traffic~r~ · ta~kfid · with d~v~ip.ii~g· ~ s~~~~~·· . to improve cyCling facilities and to red Lice the numbers Of injuries at this location>.G!y,eh th~ lack of eff~ctiveness ·of signs and markings the proposal was to ban the right-turn from theA660 into Baillbrigge Road. Both Highways and the police were inagreen1~n! th~! for - such · ~ tl.?rrto.9e ...•. .. eff~ptivethe ·junction 1e1yout wou_ld .need to p~ alt~red ,: t(). pgysJq~IIYi;#§t~_t ,<:f riyyrs #2[iya.tt~l]Ptilig . .. th~ manoeuvr~ . A de,pignwas drawn up~nd fprn,ied _the :basi$'of;tffeiili~if:llk36Q~Yitatioq}fh¢, ( ___ .··.·• scheme has the sypport of the _erllergenqy s,ervic~p a'hd-\fl./ard ;. M~hl'p'9,r~.- Th~ ,initi?i:. PPi1'S,'LIItati6ri to residen~s wasdonErwith. CounCillor James . Mo·nf:lghan - followill~{ah0ffi9ei'ICOL1n#ll9r . m~eting~ ·•.. This generated ten responses. Five of those were in favOur ofthe proposal and five against: The fundamental reason for opposing the scheme was the inconvenience ifwould pre~enttoresidents on BaiqbriggeRoad when accessing their ho111esfrom tbe t\660. Qf1balaQce, it w~s d~pid~dthat theb~J1efits '.ofth~ ~cheme wqulcj but\Neighth~ underst(:lQd~bl~.(jisbeiJefit and thatvy~ shpuld ... prpceedjo adv~, rtising the .·· l~gal Orper : ihyitiqg · c:ommel)ts/obj~c!ion~ · on atprl1lal . b?~is; Th:e notices

~Ii~~i~~~;Wi!~~~s;~~i~l!~~~i~~f~fi!;~~t~~~t~~~~:~~l~~~il~~d no ·;<:·;:::.:··> / -=>·_-:·.':: ._---- ·.:-. '_:_·: ~:::_ . -:~--~·":,": _. ·--::.:_ ...... :._ ...:: :.·,...: <-\·-:::_·_. ·-:.::-':'::_ :- ~... -· •_;_. ·. :.-:.-::..... _.. -:!>: _

with:yourobjeCtidrlas-61lethat duHngjheforiTlat notice period, as .. follows:deai ·. ··· ·· · .·.·. · ·· · · wasf~c~iy~cfcoffedly- · · · · · ·· · ·· · · · · · ·

' ' ' • In response to your objection; lwol11o be grateful.if.you would consider the information pr()videq (:lnd. infmrn

3 ,_ Your local Councillors have been made aware of the situation and support the proposed course of action. ·

Yours sincerely . _, : .

:·- :.· . : . . : : I ;:- .... ~-··: ·.: ·,

~ . . . i . : Andy;fy1er¢kel ; r' s~nibrJ=hgineer _ _-- _- . . . • Traffic MaiJfigl:lrnentWest 1-Jighways'·§imransportati()n . - ;. .: ~~@\~r ~o_aa·c , - ...· >. 6 : -: - :; .·. LEEDS, LS1 0 4AX

Tel: 0113 2477555

The information in this fi'!mail (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. Ifyou know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use ordisclqse the information in any way and please delete tryis efr1all(and any attachment) frpJl1 your system. -_.-. _._-... . The Council c1oes not accepfservice of legal documents by e~mail.

·:: ·_: .

.. ·>

• I''

· .._ ; _ : .·,_ ~ .

;, : :- -: ·- ,. .: .

, ... ·. I :' ''• ~·-~ -' >,. .'...

:' , .: . •. ,

4 Rudge, Thomas

From: Merckel, Andy Sent: 26 March 2013 13:54 To: Cc: Rudge, Thomas Subject: RE: Proposed Movement Restrictions at Junction of Bainbrigge Road with A660 Headingley Lane

Thank you for clarifying your position on this. As previously stated, we will draw up a report to Highways Board noting your objection as being formal and as part of the legal process and ask Board to consider the matter. We will notify you of their decision in due course.

Regards

Andy Merckel Senior Engineer Traffic Management West Highways & Transportation 30 Ring Road Middleton LEEDS, LS10 4AX

Tel: 0113 2477555

From: Sent: To: Merckel, Andy Subject: Re: Proposed Movement Restrictions at Junction of Balnbrigge Road with A660 Headingley Lane

Dear andy I have thought this through over the last couple of weeks and have decided I cannot retract my objection. The reasons are as well as the nuisance it would cause us and fellow residents, it will cettainly just shift the problem elsewhere and cause other problems as well. I do not think that previous measures to educate motorists and cyclists come anywhere near close, all I can find is one tiny sign which is almost invisible, and a red painted area which has almost completly faded. I think the problem would be far better addressed with better markings and signage on the main road.

On 10 March 2013 18:51, wrote: Thanks for the response Andy, I am really torn over this, i think what i am most upset about is if the road was closed the problem is just going to be shifted to the junctions of Spring Road and st Michaels. And the fact there is the entrance to the school on Spring road too. I accept the reasons the decision was made but cannot accept that it will not just push the problem elsewhere and possibly make other problems with traffic congestion, confusion and drivers getting annoyed and angry trying to get where they are going when the traffic is heavy, this whole area is difficult to negotiate in rush hour conditions as it is. I have been having a good look round and really think better signage etc on the main road is the best way forward, the signage is very poor with as far as i can see just one small sign asking drivers to beware of cyclists, but its in a position where drivers can only see it if they were in stationary traffic in the opposite side of the road to where warning should be. the problem is actually drivers encroaching into the box junction, they simply dont seem to notice its there even. The main culprits are bus drivers who pull right 1 I into the junction in queuing traffic to pull up at the bus shelter straight after the junction. Can they be educated in some way, i personally when walking past the bus stop have got on busses and talked to several drivers but they shrug their shoulders in indifference usually ! (0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 01 July 2013 18:37

To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

We have thought and hard about this for some time now and can see benefits for us as we have had a few hairy moments. However we still cannot believe that the problem will not going to vastly increase traffic congestion in other - ·My only options are to go down Spring Road turn very sharp right and then immediate left where the crossing is on Cardigan Road which is going to be a very dangerous maneuver at which is a VERY DANGEROUS bend when traffic is heavy, or go all the way round North Lane which is horrendous in rush hour, I would not attempt to try and get through via the roads at the other side of the church as these are very nanow and I have witnessed cars going nose to nose and having to back up as it is.

You say that you intend to monitor and make any adjustments required if the scheme doesn't go to plan, do I take you you would put the junction back to how it is when it fails and you see the mayhem it has caused in other areas ?

I still feel there is much more to talk about and us residents still need to be consulted and assured that we have nothing to be concerned about all these issues as we simply cannot see anything but the negatives at this stage.

Please respond to my email, but I do think we still have to seriously have more imput into this before anything is done.

On 28 June 2013 17:49, Rudge, Thomas wrote:

Dear

2 Rudge, Thomas

From: Sent: 10 July 2013 17:02 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: Bainbrigge Road Safety Scheme

feedback and objections as was the case with myself. I have also just sent an email to Greg Mulholland today. scheme solves one problem but creates several more, I feel the problem is due to very poor signage and could be improved with just a little more thought and maybe extending the box junction. Im sure this will cost an obscene amount of money to implement that could be spent better elsewhere.

This scheme will not go ahead without more consultation and answers.

I will be in touch soon when I have managed to talk and document thoughts of others and when I have had a reply from Mr Mulholland

On 10 July 2013 13:20, Rudge, Thomas wrote:

Dear -

The impact of the scheme will be monitored, and if It does have a severe negative impact or it does not achieve what was intended, the scheme will be reviewed. However until it is in place, there is no way of definitively knowing the impact. When our schemes are introduced, after a settling in period they are subject to an independent post construction safety audit. We will ask that this audit takes into consideration the impact on surrounding streets so that we can obtain a complete view of how well the scheme is performing. The safety audit at the design stage also considered the wider impact of the scheme.

Alii can do is refer back to my previous emails with regards to the schemes' objectives in casualty reduction and that our highways board discussed your concerns, taking into account the impact on the whole street and saw fit that the scheme should go ahead as proposed.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge

Traffic Management - West

City Development

Leeds City Council 1 As you will be aware we presented an objection report to our Highways Board on the 11 June for theirconsideration of your concerns to the proposed scheme on Bainbrigge Road. Highways Board $Ubsequently saw fit to resolve arid overrule your objection dukdcrthe road safety nature of this scheme. .

This means that the scheme will pre>gress as previously propos~d!ho~e'l~rwe will be monitoring the impact of itsirnplementation toensure it is achieving what was inte6de(t > : . . .

Please find attached a copy of the report as approved, this is due to go live on the Leeds City Council website shortly.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge

Traffic Ma,nagement - West · .. City [)ev~lopment

Lee~s9ity . qouncil

(01'13)2'477.581

------·------·------~------·------·. . . The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended reCipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 22 July 2013 09:17 To: Merckel, Andy Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road (CR269431) Attachments: A660 Remedial Cycling Safety Measures - Objection.doc; RE: JM/JK

Dear Mr Mulholland,

Thank you for your email regarding Bainbrigge Road.

When the scheme was originally proposed we met with the Headingley Ward members at the time. After this meeting the Councillors then undertook to do the residents and Headingley groups consultation themselves. We gained responses from 6 residents on Bainbrigge Road alongside some from those not residing on the street itself. These responses were roughly 50% in favour and 50% against.

We responded to each of these concerns including those of-which you can find attached titled 'JM/JK'. At this time no response was received fro~ , nor was there a message delivery failure. Therefore we had to assume that he had no further comment to make.

Other correspondence with residents included Copies of which are available if you require these. Those who raised concerns about the proposals were informed that they would be entitled to object to the legal advertisement. Street notices were placed on 12 August 2012 and a notice was placed in the Yorkshire Post. Street notices were maintained for a month, although at least one street notice at the top of Bainbrigge Road was evident until March. No comments or objections to the scheme were received during its advertisement period or afterwards.

-raised his concerns in March 20i3 after receiving a notification of works through the post. After discussion wit~ Traffic Management decided to accept this as a formal objection to the legal order, despite it being a long time outside the legal objection period. We took a report to our Highways Board who decided that due to the road safety nature of this scheme, with such a large amount of cyclists being injured, that the scheme should progress as proposed. (Copy of Board Report attached for information).

The background of the scheme is that the junction of Bainbrigge Road with the A660 Headingley Lane junction is currently ranked 29 in the annuai'Sites for Concern' report. It is the worst in the city in terms of cyclist injuries. It has featured regularly in the report over the last decade. In the five year period Jan 2007 to Dec 2011, the latest figures on the junction, there were 18 recorded injury accidents at the location, three of which resulted in injuries cited as serious in the police report. All but 2 of the accidents involved right turn conflict: 15 of those involved a vehicle turning through queuing traffic into the path of a cyclist legitimately using the cycle lane. Previously signs have been erected warning drivers and cyclists of the issue and, following national guidance the cycle lane ha s had red surfacing applied across the junctions. The yellow box marking was applied to create a gap in queuing traffic to improve visibility. It is clear from the accident statistics that those measures have had no positive effect.

With regards to migration of traffic, drivers who currently use Bainbrigge Road to travel from the A660 to Cardigan Road will seek alternative routes. With all schemes where habitual routes are disrupted there is a settling down period whilst drivers establish new patterns. That can be a difficult time, but is for a temporary period only. New traffic patterns will include Spring Road and St Michael's Road/Lane, but may also move some drivers onto routes further afield as they re-establish journey patterns that are comfortablet() them. Spring Road has a 29111Ph limit on it witl]accqmpanying traffic calmingf~~tur~,~~ < lt js narr.~w. · ~·~·. a.· re~t the AG.60 and is possibly a mu.C:h less 1invitingirou.. t. ethan·. the alternatives. Atth~ b~ginning and end oft he school day it will be a very unattractive routeforthrough traffic due to the school related· trafficalre_adythere (incident(llly,this scheme is alsqprovicli~g a1 NoStqpping1 order on the school zig-z~g mar.kings and a new~is~ble{bay n~ar the scho9l,ta~iQ. gadvantageoft1J7 · I~gal process t~ keep costs . down}. For a neiJIJ. rp~playout we pJace permcl!);~ritsigHing. where neces~~/yand also use 'the rep/white temporary signsto~d~ise driver~ ofthe ch~~g -~ . ... ·· ··.. ···. ··· . .·.··· •····.·...... ~\ .. ,

. . . . : .. As~J~ell as migration of traffic to e~lternative routes, there maybe some movement of accidents.However, that is unlikely to be in proportion to the traffic migration. olleof the main factors in acCident~ is.the environment. Both SpringRoad and St Michae1 1s Road have better visibility thanBainbrigge Road in terms of right-turning drivers/cyclists. There have been injury accidents involving cyclists at tho!ie junctions, but far fewer that atBainbrigge Road . With any scheme of this nature, Accident Studies monitorthe effects into the future. In this case, the monitoring area would extend to North Lane, Cardigan Road an9 Victoria Road so that any accident patterncha.nges could be detected ..

. ~- I trust you find this information useful.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Traffic Man(lgement- West. city De.velopm'~nt .·. ·, Leed~ City coJndf'. :: . _.· . ;.-. ( ... . (0i13) 247758~>.>< ·.. / ,. ··_.·:- ·.:.. . ·..- ·_<'·:· _: ,. ·.· :.'•.. i

' . ~ -----Original M~$$,age;"~~7 .·. ..: I , ::• ::. · : · From: .c;p tJigh'waysCIIrs and MPs .....:· ·.: ·.·:t' ·. . Sentpj~ly2013 14:44 ., ; .: ·. To: R4p~~,Jhpmas " .- c i ; ·· .. ._::.. ;_ ..·' ...

SubjecfB,~ip9rigge Roa_d. (C:R2. 69~31) lo: , -'

~ j ~. . .· l,' ~ • ::: • . • •

Tom ·: · ' ·. ::. ,:• t I ·-~ ,; ', ' . :' ·

~-; . . ' The CR

CD Highways Team

-----Original Message- ~-- From: B~(tlett/~ah/ ·.· Sent: 15 July.2013 16:27 To: g f~g@gregrJ,~Iholland.org Cc: Rudge, Thoma~; CD Highways Cllrs and MPs Subject: RE: Bainbriggl: < ~o~. d

Dear Mr Mulholland,

Thank you for your email below; I will pass this through to our Traffic section and ask t hem to look into this further and respond to you in this instance.

If I can be of any further assistance then please let me know,

2 Regards,

Nicola Martin Secretary to Gary Bartlett Chief Officer Highways & Transportation Tel: 0113 3951745

-----Original Message----- From: Greg Mulholland [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 July 2013 12:19 To: Bartlett, Gary Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road

Dear M r Bartlett

I am writing on behalf of a number of my constituents, who have recently contacted me and I would like to make enquiries on their behalf.

A number of residents living on or around Bainbrigge Road have contacted me to raise concerns about the proposed work to the street, to prevent entry to the road from Headingley Lane.

Many of the residents of Bainbrigge Road inform me that they are concerned about the level of consultation that took place with residents, and feel that they have had little or no chance to offer feedback or objections.

Many residents also feel that the proposals will simply push the problems to other nearby roads, and indeed may create more traffic flow problems by closing off one route.

I would be grateful if you could look into this matter and advise me and my constituents whether any other proposals we~e considered and address concerns about the lack of consultation with residents.

Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Greg Mulholland Member of Parliament for Leeds North West

Tel: 0113 226 6519 Fax: 0113 267 223 7 www.gregmulholland.org Twitter: @gregmulholland1

Whilst Greg Mulholland will treat as confidential any personal information which you pass on, he will normally allow staff and authorised volunteers to see it if this is needed to help and advise you. He may pass on all or some ofthis information to agencies such as the DWP,HMRC or the local Council if this is necessary to help with your case. Greg Mulholland may wish to write to you from time to time to keep you informed on issues which you may find of interest. Please let him know if you do not wish to be contacted for this purpose.

3 Rudge, Thomas

From: Sent: 25 July 2013 12:25 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: Bainbrigge Road LS63AD

It is obvious that not enough research has been done before making the and use the junction daily, cyclists come round the bend at fantastic speeds, often with personal headsets on, busses encroach into the box junction, there is ONE small sign warning cyclists of danger which is currently facing the wrong way and is virtually on the junction so even if it was facing the cyclist path is too little too late, the red painted area means nothing to me and therefore means nothing to the majority of cyclists ? Once again its too little too late as this stat1s literally feet from where the incidents occur and is also very badly faded. As a taxpayer I am getting more and more angry by your responses and the intention of forcing this totally over the top scheme upon us. Once again I request that a select few residents have some sort of meeting with you where you can show us evidence of all that you say you have done prior to the decision to be made, and more importantly to reassure us of how you can be so confident that this whole thing is not going to cause absolute chaos and confusion in the area. I don't know why you keep continuing to ignore this request. Why cant common sense prevail ? extend the box junction another 10 feet and the red cycle lane another 20 feet and put up 2 or 3 more signs maybe as far as the site of the old high school, this would cost far less and Im sure will be adequate.

I am forwarding this to Greg Mulholland

On 25 July 2013 10:05, Rudge, Thomas wrote:

Dear -

We had been informed yesterday afternoon that works were due to be delayed for 3 weeks due to our contractor being occupied with a differe!lt ~cheme.

As stated previously signs have been erected warning drivers and cyclists of the issue and, following national guidance the cycle lane has had red surfacing applied across the junctions. The yellow box marking was applied to create a gap in queuing traffic to improve visibility. It is clear from the accident statistics that those measures have had no positive effect. This is not the first attempt we have had at reducing accidents at this location.

Consultation with residents was not 'cherry picked' the house numbers stated are those that responded to the consultation which the Headingley Councillors at the time sent out.

1 ...

Other measures have been considered, for example the idea of rumble strips in the cycle lane was raised by a resident during consultation. Placing such measures would possibly cause the majority of 'enthusiast' cyclists (those who ride bicycles with no suspension and stiff tyres) to simply not ride in the cycle lane at that point, due to the disturbance caused. The speed of cyclist is not the main problem at this location, it is the problem of cyclists being masked by queuing traffic and ~ars turning right across their path due to not being able to see them. Placing vertical traffic calming features in a cycle lane is not appropriate and would as previously said cause the cyclist to leave the lane and join the main carriageway, reducing visibility further for right turning traffic.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge

Traffic Management- West

City Development

Leeds City Council

(0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 23 Ju To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Bainbrigge Road LS63AD

I am in receipt of a letter from Greg Mulholland who enclosed a copy of the email you sent to him. 1 will be forwarding this email to him also. -

Firstly I am shocked by the accident statistics, but also shocked on another 2 levels. 1) That there hasn't been more accidents, and 2) With the history of accidents why ABSOLUTELY NOTHING up to now has been done to prevent this over the years. There is ONE very small sign warning cyclists of the danger which as of today is turned the wrong way and hidden by a bush. as far as 1 am aware this has been the case for quite some time. Surely the council has shown a huge level of negligence up to this point in doing anything to prevent what are obviously regular accidents ! The box junction was either created or extended and supposedly a red area was painted in the cycle lane, the box junction does seem to be ignored MAINLY by bus drivers who encroach into it to pull up at the bus stop at the other side of the junction, and the red paint is barely visible.

As of yet there are no signs of works commencing although we were informed of works starting on the 22nd. This is also very inconsiderate to residents who have no idea what is going on and once again we are kept in the dark.

In your email you say you had consultation with the residents

2 that ALL the residents were not contacted and not ·

The general opinion still is that the problem can be sorted out with a far simpler and much less expensive solution. Signs that can actually be seen and maybe a rumble strip, speed bump type ide to slow cyclists down who come round the bend at a rate of knots so it is them that are colliding with cars and not the other way round. I don't suppose I am allowed to say they only have themselves to blame because it is pure common sense and none of them seem to possess it.

We still cannot accept that this is also going to cause several other problems with traffic having to take far nan·ower roads with cars double parked as an alternative.

So once again I am saying I am not completely against the scheme but feel very strongly that this can be smted out in a better way which will no doubt cost significantly less, Would a sign that illuminates to warn cyclists be possible like the ones that light up when a car approaches that is going too fast. ?

I hope it doesn't sound like sour grapes but it seems like the wrong people are being 'punished' here.

I would like to see evidence of meetings and discussions prior to the decision being made and wondered if something as simple as my ideas to solve the problem had been considered.

Once again I await your response

The infotmation in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the infonnation in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Rudge, Thomas

From: Hall, Andrew (Transport) S~nt: 07 August 2013 14:01 To: Cc: Merckel, Andy; Rud ge, Thomas Subject: RE: URGENT, proposed works at Bainbrigge Road LS63AD

-I note your comments which I have passed on to the design team and asked them. to contact you as soon as possible.

They will also confirm the intended start date which I understand to be now imminent.

Kind regards,

Andrew Hall Acting Head of Transport Policy Highways and Transportation City Development

T: 01132475296 M: 07891 271843 ======

From: Sent: 07 August 2013 13:06 To: Hall, Andrew (Transport) Subject: Re: URGENT, proposed works at Bainbrigge Road LS63AD

Hi Andrew I would very much like to talk to the designers can you please organise this for me prior to any work being carried out. the diagrams you sent me don't really show me as a layman very much so I can only imagine what the new junction will look like, I think the thing that is still upsetting me most is we were promised a tidy up and reduction of street furniture and now we are · even more, I think the one way will be an and will be can you also give me an update on when the work is expected to commence ?

On 7 August 2013 10:49, Hall, Andrew (Transport) wrote:

Dear -

Thank you for your reply.

1 Whilst I appreciate your sentiments and views, there is probably little I can add regarding the basis for the scheme. I have noted the points you make about the signing and have asked for the site to be inspected but I believe my comments about the fundamentals of the road layout still hold in terms of a permanent resolution of this matter.

In terms of the scheme design I can confirm the works will reflect the existing materials at the location, namely that Yorkstone kerbs and paving will be used. The possibility of some form of tree planting has been also been investigated. However, I am informed that the site has a number of public utilities present, including a significant water main which unfortunately make planting inappropriate.

The traffic signing will be kept to the minimum commensurate with meeting our statutory requirements for the regulation concerned. I have attached the working drawings for the scheme which can be discussed further with the designers should you wish.

Yours sincerely, ·

Andrew Hall

Acting Head of Transport Policy

Highways and Transportation

City Development

T: 0113 2475296

M: ======

WHEN REPLYING PLEASE REMEMBER TO USE [email protected]

From: Sent: 5 August To: Hall, Andrew (Transport) Subject: Re: URGENT, proposed works at Bainbrigge Road LS63AD

I personally am very disappointed.

2 ' I simply cannot agree that you feel that everything has been done and this is the only solution. The signage warning cyclists ofthe danger is virtually non existent and consists of ONE SMALL SIGN which is cunently turned facing the wrong way so cant be seen anyway. !

If I were one of the cyclists that had been injured I would be furious because of the lack of notification of the danger.

So now my next wony is that the works will not be within keeping of our lovely street, can we maybe be reassured of this and that Yorkshire stone will be used for the paved areas and kerbs. We were originally told that there may even be a couple of trees planted and that the old street furniture would be tidied up and removed, but from what I have seen it looks like there will be even more unsightly signage with No Entry Signs and One Way signs, the one way signs I think are completely unnecassary as it will now be obvious that it is one way out onto the main road.

Can we at least talk about this and maybe see some plans and visuals ?

On 4 August 2013 19:15, Hall, Andrew (Transport) wrote:

Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed road safety works at Bainbrigge Road. Gary is on annual leave and has asked me to respond. First of all can I assure you that this matter has been considered in depth for some time, most recently when the Highways Board met to consider the scheme further following your objection. The decision to authorise the scheme was not taken lightly and your arguments were carefully considered as had the situation beforehand when the proposals were first approved and authorised for consultation, preparation and public advertisement of the Traffic Order proposals.

The junction of Bainbrigge Road and Headingley Lane is the single worst location in Leeds for cyclist injury-accidents and has remained in this position despite the various works and initiatives undertaken over the years to try to encourage both drivers and cyclists to be more alert to the location and its dangers. Unfortunately the cyclist casualty rate has remained high and we do not believe that further measures that rely on driver and cyclist observation can contribute to any future improvement at this location. Whilst I appreciate your points our continued observations suggest that the issues at the junction are more fundamental to the road layout and traffic movements such that the situation is most unlikely to be improved by signing and publicity measures alone. Currently this one location is ranked 24 of 45 of the highest rated road injury sites for concern in the Council's annual assessment. Of the 19 collisions at this junction in the last five years, 15 involved right-turn conflicts and in each case a cyclist was injured. Furthermore of the remaining collisions 2 involved cyclists.

3 It has been concluded that more radical action is needed to eliminate what we now is the main risk factor at this junction and therefore the decision to prevent drivers from turning in to Bainbrigge Road arose from the need to physically prevent the manoeuvre that results in the vast majority of the collisions. We expect the measures to have a rapid and lasting impact on the cyclist casualty rate at this location leading to a significant improvement in road safety on the A660 route.

I appreciate that the measures will displace some traffic from the junction to other roads, including those vehicles that are currently using Bainbrigge Road as a short cut and that there is a measure of inconvenience involved for some residents in achieving the scheme. However, having examined the alternatives and exhausted other options, we are confident of the benefit offered by the scheme in offering a solution to this long standing road injury site. The impacts of t he scheme on road safety and traffic on the surrounding roads will be closely monitored following completion of the scheme.

I am sorry that you are not able to support the scheme, but I trust that this explanation helps to clarify why in these particular circumstances and after extended consideration a decision has been taken to proceed with the proposals.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Hall

Acting Head of Transport Policy

Highways and Transportation

City Development

T: 0113 24 75296

======

From:

4 ' Sent: 31 July 2013 13:07 To: Bartlett, Gary Subject: URGENT, proposed works at Bainbrigge Road -

Hello Gary, your details have been forwarded to me from Greg Mulholland, who has been offering what little help he can with our dilemma .

..J There are proposed works due to be carried out any time now to make the street that l live on, Bainbrigge Road - a no entry street from the main road, Headingley Lane. I have been trying to communicate with Thomas Rudge, about several concerns but he is now choosing to completely ignore me.

Myself and other residents have very mixed feeling about the scheme and we feel it is probably not the best solution to the problem which is traffic turning into our street and causing collisions with cyclists. The feeling is that the problem can be sotted out with better signage and extending the box junction, at the moment there is ONE small sign warning cyclists of the danger and that at this moment in time appears to have been twisted round and is impossible for cyclists to see so in effect they have no warning of the danger.

We also feel that by making Bainbrigge Road no entry that it will just push the problem on to either Spring Road or St Michaels Lane, and indeed create several more problems as these two roads are the only alternative routes for drivers and are both very narrow, almost one way in places, and there is a school half way down the hill on Spring Road.

The residents of Bainbrigge Road have had little or no consultation at all about this scheme, with no chance to reply or object.

I have on several occasions asked Mr Rudge at least if we could have a meeting to discuss our fears but he no longer replies to me at all.

I am really hoping that it is not too late as the works are now imminent for us to at least have our chance to be consulted about this as the general feeling by the people who live here is it is not the best solution to the problem and will also cause chaos and inconvenience.

I await and would appreciate your prompt reply.

Many thanks

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the infonnation in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

5 ------,

6 Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 15 August 2013 10:08 To: Merckel, Andy Subject: FW: wednesday

FYI

Tom Rudge Traffic Management -West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 14 August To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: wednesday

straight away saw another potential problem that Im sure will cause accidents. I witnessed people turning right into Bainbrigge Road and within the 15 minutes I saw a few motorists who I guess had seen the white marks you have painted and hesitate into turning before realising it was still OK to do so. I · am sure once the no entry signs are put up this is going to be so much worse as motorists will have already commited to making the turn before they realise they cant in fact do so and end up in the middle of the road and either havi to out to the left or even reverse to · · the flow of traffic and catTy on- once again I am thinking that nobody has actually spent any amount of time on site looking at the real problems. It is so obvious with your continued response that every other option had been exhausted before making this decision to alter the junction when it so obviously HASNT ! All the signs are there or should I say they arnt there as there is minimal signage and warning for cyclists. Please let me know what time are on site

On 13 August 2013 13:14, Rudge, Thomas wrote:

Dear -

maybe a more suitable time would be on Thursday morning or any time Friday? Wednesday at 4 is fine for us, but we will leave the decision to yourself.

Kind Regard s,

1 Tom Rudge

Traffic Management- West

City Development

Leeds City Council

(0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 12 August 2013 17:25

To: Rudge1 Thomas Subject: wednesday

Hi Thomas, so I would be struggling to meet you now at 3.00 as plapned. I do really want to see you and have a chat, Will you be on site earlier, maybe I can meet you around 12.00 or I could maybe get back around 4.00? Please let me know what is best for you if we can do that

thanks

The infonnation in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

2 Rudge, Thomas

From: Hall, Andrew (Transport) Sent: 16 August 2013 14:12 To: Merckel, Andy; Rudge, Thomas Cc: Claxton, Howard Subject: RE: Bainbrigge Road -

Thanks both taking the time for this. It is appreciated. Andrew ======Andrew Hall Acting Head of Transport Policy Highways and Transportation City Development

T: 0113 2475296 M: ======~~~======

WHEN Rf~:PLYING PLE~~E RE~EM~E~ TO ~SE _endrew.hall@!fleqs.g?.V.~k From: Merckel, Andy Sent: 16 August 2013 14:05 To: Hall, Andrew (Transport) Cc: Rudge, Thomas; Howard Subject: Bainbrigge Road

Andrew

Tom and I met wit~ t his morning. It was a friendly meeting and we have agreed to disagree regarding the scheme rationale. He seems to be happy that we are using the right materials and now he's seen the full signing layout he's a bit more relaxed about that. I'm sure he's never going to be totally at ease with the scheme, but we've now done all we can. Work is due to start next week.

Regards

Andy Merckel Senior Engineer Traffic Management West Highways & Transportation 30 Ring Road Middleton LEEDS, LS1 0 4AX

Tel: 0113 2477555

1 Rudge, Thomas

From: Rudge, Thomas Sent: 04 September 2013 13:38 To: Subject: RE: works etc

Mr-

As you are aware the A660 corridor has a very significant cyclist demand along the route, who are one of our most vulnerable road users. The scheme outside subway is intended to reallocate highway, allowing for the carriageway to be widened. This will enable us to provide an outbound cycle lane at this location, giving cyclists a protected area to cycle in.

Funding was obtained from central government to allow this to happen, and is separate to our maintenance budgets. I am unable to comment on specific government funding for maintenance against road safety, but this is a part of a package of measures (including Bainbrigge Road) proposed along the A660 corridor to make it safer for cyclists.

The works to narrow the footpath will only be done from in front of the bollards, leaving kerbs in line with them. This means the area used by pedestrians from the bollards to the back of footway will be unaffected, not reducing the available width. Yorkstone kerbs will be used in the construction, keeping in nature with the conservation area:

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge Traffic Management - West City Development Leeds City Council (0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 04 September 2013 10:55 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: Re: works etc

Thanks Thomas, I would be very interested in hearing about the flag replacement, I once again find it incredible that this is down to funding when I see so much money wasted on things that are simply not needed, a case in point is can you please explain what significant if any benefit is expected with the alterations on the main road near subway by digging up all the flags and posts etc to move them barely 12" This is going to obviously take a few weeks and cause a lot of dismption and 1 cannot see ANY benefit at all to anyone, even cyclists. Can you please explain the thinking behind this to help me understand, this is a very busy area at lunchtimes and evenings that quite often pedestrians have to walk in the road as the pavements are so crowded ! - MOn- 3 September 2013 17:19, Rudge, Thomas wrote:

1 ' Thanks for your email.

Yes, there have been some unforeseen delays, one involving Yorkshire Electric, who provide the electrical feeds to our illuminated signs, we are still waiting to hear what timescale will be given to their element of the works. The civils contractor however, are planning to double their workforce to complete the job as soon as possible. I'm glad to hear there has been little audible disturbance to yourself.

I know that there are often delays in restoring stolen and damaged flags due to the funding problems we face, it's a complaint that I believe comes in quite regularly across areas with stone flags. I will ask t hat our maintenance team get in touch with you for a more in depth answer to this.

I've reported the street light to SSE Contracting who operate the lighting PFI for Leeds City Council, you can see the progress of this fault by clicking 'here'. For future information, you're able to report faults online at the SSE Contracting website, which is http://www.lightsoninleeds.co.uk.

I hope this information helps and if you have any other queries please don't hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Rudge

Traffic Management- West

City Development

Leeds City Council

(0113) 2477581

From: Sent: 03 September 2013 17:05 To: Rudge, Thomas Subject: works etc

Hi Thomas all seems to be going well. although obviously this is going to take longer than the estimated 3 weeks. its not a problem. we really expected there to be a lot more noise than there has been but we have hardly heard them at all.

Don't know if your the right person to ask but if not maybe direction ? At the end of last week some paving slabs were stolen a temporary repair

2 was very quickly done with tarmac but it would be nice to see this properly repaired with stone slabs, there are several other areas up and down too where this has happened over a period of time, I understood that each time this happened and tarmac was used that it was only a temporary measure and that all areas would be repaired properly ASAP but some have been like that for ages, there are also several areas particularly down the bottom end of bainbrigge where slabs have become loose and dangerous and difficult to negotiate.

Finally we have noticed that the street lamp doesn1t always come on, it has failed to do so on a number of occasions but only seems to do so for a day at any one time.

look forward to hearing from you. - The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

·-- · -·------~------·----