# Bradford Cycle Lane



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

Quality.


----------



## Drago (18 May 2015)

Where does one even begin to describe their horror?


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

> An Alternative Department for Transport blog post, titled Bradford's Cycle Super Deathway, said: "The junction is dangerously designed – turning motor traffic has priority over the cycleway at side roads. The junction is unclear, people on foot and on bike are expected to look left as well as backwards to the right, simultaneously, and so the design is dangerous."
> 
> "This is exactly the type of design which all cycling campaigners hate, from the hardened road warriors who love mixing with motor vehicles, to those who dream of the stress-free cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands.
> 
> "Nobody wants cycleways like this. They don’t suit the fit and confident, and they fail the rest of us. They’re crap, and they’re dangerous."



http://road.cc/content/news/151843-...ay-slammed-dangerous-design-changes-offers-no

Similar design to the one involved in Mr Lang's death:

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/senior-coroner-concludes-henry-langs-death-accidental

If you think about it, it means you MUST give way to vehicles that are behind you.


----------



## growingvegetables (18 May 2015)

Drago said:


> Where does one even begin to describe their horror?


Dunno - but it's costing over £1 million a mile.


----------



## mjr (18 May 2015)

Official non-response now available at https://www.facebook.com/cyclecityconnect/posts/460067474174494 - until cityconnect delete it, which they can, as page admins.


----------



## Pete Owens (18 May 2015)

At least they havent installed fences:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/May2015.htm


----------



## mjr (18 May 2015)

They haven't installed fences YET.


----------



## Dan B (18 May 2015)

The painted word "SLOW" is presumably a description of the individuals who came up with this design, right?


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> They haven't installed fences YET.


Bradford are currently in the process of removing the majority of roadside fences. Schools will be an exception along with blind entrances onto the road.

Nice access road for the taxi company & the shops though!


----------



## mjr (18 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> Bradford are currently in the process of removing the majority of roadside fences. Schools will be an exception along with blind entrances onto the road.


Because schools are just where we want to crush inexperienced cyclists against a fence?

Fashions change. Now they're removing them but unless we get good compulsory national design standards for cycleways that ban such things, like we have for carriageways, any nobber council can start reinstalling fences any time.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Because schools are just where we want to crush inexperienced cyclists against a fence?
> 
> Fashions change. Now they're removing them but unless we get good compulsory national design standards for cycleways that ban such things, like we have for carriageways, any nobber council can start reinstalling fences any time.


Outside the gates only, at schools. Stop an exit straight into the roads, by anyone exiting on foot.


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Official non-response now available at https://www.facebook.com/cyclecityconnect/posts/460067474174494 - until cityconnect delete it, which they can, as page admins.



Their response seems to be a complete pack of lies, nobody approved that, no cyclist would ever approve that nonsense.


----------



## mjr (18 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> Outside the gates only, at schools. Stop an exit straight into the roads, by anyone exiting on foot.


Heavens forbid any motorists should have to deal with a pedestrian. Or that any road near a school should be closed when there are lots of children exiting.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Heavens forbid any motorists should have to deal with a pedestrian. Or that any road near a school should be closed when there are lots of children exiting.


Or that a small child, with no sense of danger run straight out the gate either. Even a bunch of older ones coming onto the road can affect how you'd ride your bike.


----------



## midlife (18 May 2015)

How did that white van thing get parked there? Is that a dropped kerb for vehicles?

Looks like my 10 year old drew the layout .....

Shaun


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Official non-response now available at https://www.facebook.com/cyclecityconnect/posts/460067474174494 - until cityconnect delete it, which they can, as page admins.


This one? 
_"Thanks for all the comments on the junction off Dick Lane, we appreciate the time taken to let us know your views and have got the following response;

The design for this junction has not differed from the design consulted on although we acknowledge that the design drawings for this junction may have been misinterpreted. Safety concerns from the safety Audit Team were one of the factors for the design of this junction.
This junction has been subject to the same sign off process by Advisory Group and Programme Board that all other designs have. Advisory Group includes representatives from Sustrans, CTC and Leeds Cycle Campaign as well as other interested parties. The design for this junction has also been subject to the same public consultation process on and off line. 
However, in light of the considerable interest on social media and sections of the press, the design team have been asked to produce a position statement to be reviewed by the Advisory Group to ensure that the final design is the best possible outcome in this location.
If we have been quiet today it is because we have been looking at the issues raised and progressing a solution. The safety of cyclists and the provision of an ambitious piece of infrastructure remains our key priority.

We'll keep you updated. Thanks"


Like · Comment · Share_
On which you've been active.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

midlife said:


> How did that white van thing get parked there? Is that a dropped kerb for vehicles?
> 
> Looks like my 10 year old drew the layout .....
> 
> Shaun


Taxi company & shops there. You can see the dropped curb in the picture.


----------



## midlife (18 May 2015)

Wouldn't it have been better on the other side of the road if that's a taxi and shops ?

Shaun


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

The detailed designs which are still on the CityConnect website show the side road giving way to the cycle track.


----------



## Profpointy (18 May 2015)

midlife said:


> Wouldn't it have been better on the other side of the road if that's a taxi and shops ?
> 
> Shaun



would have been better still if all involved had gone to the pub, spent the budget on beer and built nothing.

I am perfectly serious by the way. This is not merely total crap but far worse than merely useless as it increases the danger and inconveniences users, and non-using cyclists and motorists too - and all with public money ie our hard earned taxes. Makes me genuinely angry


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

midlife said:


> Wouldn't it have been better on the other side of the road if that's a taxi and shops ?
> 
> Shaun


Wide pavement at that point and they don't own the land, sports ground & golf course, on the other side.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The detailed designs which are still on the CityConnect website show the side road giving way to the cycle track.


If you follow the link given by @mrjay, you'll see that the approved plans were not followed. That from a local.


----------



## Pete Owens (18 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The detailed designs which are still on the CityConnect website show the side road giving way to the cycle track.


But that would have been before the safety auditors spotted how dangerous that would have been.


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> But that would have been before the safety auditors spotted how dangerous that would have been.



Then why are cityconnect claiming that what we see is what was approved?


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> But that would have been before the safety auditors spotted how dangerous that would have been.





glenn forger said:


> Then why are cityconnect claiming that what we see is what was approved?



_"The design for this junction has not differed from the design consulted on although *we acknowledge that the design drawings for this junction may have been misinterpreted.* Safety concerns from the safety Audit Team were one of the factors for the design of this junction.
This junction has been subject to the same sign off process by Advisory Group and Programme Board that all other designs have. Advisory Group includes representatives from Sustrans, CTC and Leeds Cycle Campaign as well as other interested parties. The design for this junction has also been subject to the same public consultation process on and off line. "_


----------



## mjr (18 May 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> But that would have been before the safety auditors spotted how dangerous that would have been.


Less dangerous than the layout they've built, which is similar to the lethal A316 in Richmond.


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

The original plans are still there. They are completely different, so when cityconnect claim that what we see is what was approved they're lying.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Less dangerous than the layout they've built, which is similar to the lethal A316 in Richmond.


Its not on a main road as such though. Its a minor road, in that area. I'll stick with Sticker Lane & Leeds Road rather than use that road. Any day.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The original plans are still there. They are completely different, so when cityconnect claim that what we see is what was approved they're lying.


No, being economical with the truth! These are hard times and they must be economical at times.


----------



## glenn forger (19 May 2015)

https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/leeds-bradford-cityconnect-an-update/



> The project’s mouthpiece has now issued a statement on their Facebook page.
> Unfortunately, the two main claims are untrue.


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 May 2015)

I use this road daily on my commute and I'm actually really concerned about this junction. I enter Bradford Rd at Thornburry Barracks Roundabout from Pudsey and travel up via Dick Ln, taking the central lane to exit on Leeds Rd.

Clearly with design like this, it's safer to stick to your guns in the middle of the road than having to risk being left hooked at this junction. I really hope they revisit this and reconsider the layout, no cyclist worth his salt would use the segregated lane here as it stands. It undermines the entire pathway up Bradford & Leeds Rd.

One thing's for sure, once it's open motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path. Thumbs up* to the clever chaps who gave this modification to the original plans the go ahead. The junction going to be more treacherous than taking the central lane, how long before there is a death on the hands of CityConnect? I hope its not me, but in reality, it's going to be some poor inexperienced cyclists unwise enough to use the road.

This is a prime example of why segregation isn't the answer. £18.1 of DfT and council money would have been better spent on safety campaign and prosecuting dangerous drivers.

_(*) Sarcasm masking anger._


----------



## mjr (21 May 2015)

confusedcyclist said:


> One thing's for sure, once it's open motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path.


Are they *really* not already angry and hostile? If so, then Leeds and Bradford must have really changed since the last time I was there!



> This is a prime example of why segregation isn't the answer. £18.1 of DfT and council money would have been better spent on safety campaign and prosecuting dangerous drivers.


Then as soon as the money runs out, the effect starts to fade and we'd be back to square zero with only us truly stubborn people riding there, wouldn't we?

I feel this is more prime example of why we need decent standards that councils must follow, same as they do for carriageways, and that we should ban councils from secretly changing plans between consultation and construction. Cameron may not like "red tape" but there is no hope for "localism" if officers don't have to tell locals what they're doing.


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Are they *really* not already angry and hostile? If so, then Leeds and Bradford must have really changed since the last time I was there!



Sorry, corrected!



confusedcyclist said:


> One thing's for sure, once it's open *even more* motorists are going to be angry and hostile with cyclists boycotting this path.



Its about time these safety auditors actually got out of their cars and on a bike and worked out what it's really like to ride on the road.


----------



## classic33 (21 May 2015)

confusedcyclist said:


> Its about time these safety auditors actually got out of their cars and on a bike and worked out what it's really like to ride on the road.


Or maybe the five council departments involved in this, could actually talk to each other.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Quality.



It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.

So what?

There are many similar junctions near me, most with no markings at all.

Makes me more inclined to use the road, but this path is wider and better surfaced than most.

Depends on how busy the junction is, but from the pic it looks as if a cyclist would have a good chance of crossing without having to stop.

I would probably use the cycle path, and even if not, I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.


----------



## mjr (22 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.
> 
> So what?


So it's not a safe design. You don't only have to give way to the side road, but traffic behind you on the main road. I can't look through 270 degrees at once - can you? If not, it's not possible to use that layout safely. Would anyone like to calculate how far to one's left a rear-view mirror would need to stick out to give useful visibility back over one's right shoulder?

So it's contrary to official guidance, policy and the original plans agreed with cycling groups, but it's being funded from "Cycle City Ambition" budget. Not much ambition being shown there, is there?


> There are many similar junctions near me, most with no markings at all.


I'm sorry that you have to suffer such lethally-dangerous crap but why would you want to inflict it on others? Misery loves company?



> I would probably use the cycle path, and even if not, I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.


And there, in a nutshell, is part of the reason why cycling in this country still suffers lots of crap from councils. The "I certainly wouldn't make a fuss" mentality


----------



## potsy (22 May 2015)

mjray said:


> So it's not a safe design. You don't only have to give way to the side road, but traffic behind you on the main road. I can't look through 270 degrees at once - can you?


How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?

Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?


----------



## Markymark (22 May 2015)

potsy said:


> How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?
> 
> Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?


This. All day long. It's not great. I'd never use it. It's no more dangerous than a pedestrian crossing. It would be inconvenient not dangerous. It would only be dangerous to cyvlistd who ignore the give way sign.


----------



## mjr (22 May 2015)

potsy said:


> How would you cross that side road if you were a pedestrian?
> 
> Isn't that exactly what we all have to do?


I usually walk a little way into side roads (which is often where drop kerbs are, locally) so I only need to look left and right and when walking, I'm going much more slowly, so I have more time to check left, then right, then cross half the road and recheck left before entering the second half.

Plus, there's at least some guidance in http://highwaycode.info/rule/170 that drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing, whereas nobbers seem keen to drive into bikes and it seems very rare that they get punished for it.

If cyclists crossing side road mouths on cycle tracks always had priority like pedestrians do, it wouldn't really matter as much what the markings were.


----------



## growingvegetables (22 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Depends on how busy the junction is, .....


Horrendous.


Pale Rider said:


> I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about it.


It would be nice to count on your support for those who DO know the junction, and know something of the silly games that lie behind the "installation"?


----------



## downfader (24 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.
> 
> So what?
> 
> ...



We have this design (albeit very narrow, handlebar width and supposedly two-way as per the paint) down here and they're a massive pain in the neck. The problem is there is no obligation on any motorist to keep access clear. We end up waiting minutes sometimes before we can cross ours as motorists fixate on getting out of the junction themselves. Then there is often the issue of trying to assess behind you, remember - motorists turning in are not legally obligated to indicate, so there is that risk too. You're not just trying to assess left and right as a cyclist, you're trying to assess two extra traffic flows. 

What you should be making a fuss about is that good designs are out there, are very well known, and that public money has been wasted on this. A lot of public money.


----------



## NorthernDave (24 May 2015)

Confusingly, for cyclists using the whole route at least, this type of junction on York Road in the Leeds section of the Super Cycleway gives priority to those using the cycle lane, with speed cushions and give way markings for traffic turning off the A64 dual carriageway onto the side roads - the exact opposite of what is being laid out in the Bradford section (this isn't without its own dangers as it will require motorists to notice that they have to give way to a cyclist on a segregated piece of tarmac and then stop with the rear of their vehicle protruding into a live lane of 40mph traffic.)
It's a shame that they didn't see fit to run this section from Seacroft to Killingbeck on quieter local roads / across the council owned playing fields / green space between South Parkway and York Rd keeping it totally away from any roads at all in addition to cutting the corner...


----------



## Dan B (24 May 2015)

I suspect that whether a left-turning driver gives way or not in practice depend not at all on whether the paint says they should. Given what we know about the compliance with, say, ASLs, I wouldn't feel safe on a roadside path like this without slowing to walking pace at each junction.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 May 2015)

Dan B said:


> Given what we know about the compliance with, say, ASLs, I wouldn't feel safe on a roadside path like this without slowing to walking pace at each junction.


Or (shhhh, I did NOT suggest this ... never!) --------













ride in the wrong direction? You get a much clearer view of traffic intentions. Not that I've tried. Of course not.


----------



## howard2107 (2 Jun 2015)

Whether it is good or bad, no one will be able to use, all the bloody ignorant taxi drivers will park all over it, just like they do on everything else


----------



## Profpointy (2 Jun 2015)

howard2107 said:


> Whether it is good or bad, no one will be able to use, all the bloody ignorant taxi drivers will park all over it, just like they do on everything else



surely it's good that people get some use from it for parking, as it's fark-all use as a cycle path


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Jun 2015)

I have yet to see a well thought out cycle lane in this country, segregated or not. I cannot think of the last time I actually used one as in my experience none of them are fit for purpose. I spent a year living in the Netherlands so I know useable design. Seeing as the powers that be have absolutely no idea, I wish they would stop trying until they can work out a real solution. Half-arsed solutions in my opinion are worse than no solution, it just antagonises driver, cyclists and pedestrians. If there were no cycle paths then at least everyone would be aware of that fact and drive/ride/walk accordingly, probably far safer than the current situation.


----------



## mjr (2 Jun 2015)

But @Milkfloat even if they stopped trying today, there would be all the crap they've already built. The cheapest and possibly best way forwards is if they fix the crap.


----------



## howard2107 (4 Jun 2015)

Profpointy said:


> surely it's good that people get some use from it for parking, as it's fark-all use as a cycle path



The standard of driving is atrocious, the highway code has no relevance, and road markings are there just to break up the monotony of the black tarmac, park what you want where you want drive how you want, using your mobile phone is mandatory, and speed limits! what the hell are they for? its like driving through a third world country. The cycle lane maybe pants, but it is far safer than the 3 lane death race at the side of it. Its no wonder that BD postcodes make up about 6 of the top ten highest motor insurance risks in the country, with BD3 having the highest population of uninsured drivers in the country to boot.

Cheers...........Howard


----------



## NorthernDave (11 Jun 2015)

Work continues on this scheme alongside the A64 in Leeds, albeit at a glacial pace.
I've noticed that on the uphill drag heading out of Leeds, the cycle super highway only looks wide enough for one bike. Given the length of this ascent this seems like a serious design flaw given the obvious variation of speeds that will be achieved by different cyclists.
It has to be said that the quality of work doesn't look brilliant either.


----------



## mjr (12 Jun 2015)

Any pics please @NorthernDave?


----------



## NorthernDave (8 Jul 2015)

Sorry, no pics. However the standard of work and (in places) the layout looks like a lot is going to be left to be desired..
The cycle lane seems to wander around a lot, in some places looks only wide enough for a single bike and the standard of things like dropped kerbs and surface changes seems very variable.
It also the route is being installed on either side of the A64 dual carriageway and it seems that there is an assumption that users of the cycle route will stick to matching the direction of traffic on that side - there doesn't appear to be room in most places for bikes to pass each other which could be fun.
Oh, and the completed section outside the shops on Barwick Rd is already being blocked by cars parking on it...


----------



## classic33 (8 Jul 2015)

NorthernDave said:


> Sorry, no pics. However the standard of work and (in places) the layout looks like a lot is going to be left to be desired..
> The cycle lane seems to wander around a lot, in some places looks only wide enough for a single bike and the standard of things like dropped kerbs and surface changes seems very variable.
> It also the route is being installed on either side of the A64 dual carriageway and it seems that there is an assumption that users of the cycle route will stick to matching the direction of traffic on that side - there doesn't appear to be room in most places for bikes to pass each other which could be fun.
> *Oh, and the completed section outside the shops on Barwick Rd is already being blocked by cars parking on it...*


Already reported to the council


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> Already reported to the council



Have you heard anything back, or seen any signs of action?
I only ask as the council are usually very slow to act - I've reported that the on demand traffic lights on Coal Rd aren't picking up approaching cyclists (meaning you have to sit at a red light like a lemon until a car arrives, or get off and push the bike round the lights on the path...  ) 3 times now and its still not sorted.


----------



## classic33 (9 Jul 2015)

NorthernDave said:


> Have you heard anything back, or seen any signs of action?
> I only ask as the council are usually very slow to act - I've reported that the on demand traffic lights on Coal Rd aren't picking up approaching cyclists (meaning you have to sit at a red light like a lemon until a car arrives, or get off and push the bike round the lights on the path...  ) 3 times now and its still not sorted.


Nowt yet, but as it also involves private hire vehicles using it, I'm not expecting anything soon.
On four weeks and counting. Contractors had similar problems with vehicles parking on the pavement.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> Already reported to the council


The no parking TROs will not go into force until about 2 weeks before the route is "officially opened". Cue dozens and dozens of complaints from aggrieved residents grown used to the £19million extension to their driveways. 



NorthernDave said:


> I've reported that the on demand traffic lights on Coal Rd aren't picking up approaching cyclists ... 3 times now and its still not sorted.


Leeds City Council do not EVER respond to such trivia ... in my experience. There's two similar on York Road - multiple reports, no action .... over 5 years!


----------



## classic33 (9 Jul 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> The no parking TROs will not go into force until about 2 weeks before the route is "officially opened". Cue dozens and dozens of complaints from aggrieved residents grown used to the £19million extension to their driveways.
> 
> 
> Leeds City Council do not EVER respond to such trivia ... in my experience. There's two similar on York Road - multiple reports, no action .... over 5 years!


But the illegal pavement parking has also been reported by the contractors.
Waiting to hear what happens with regards the private hire licence.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Jul 2015)

classic33 said:


> But the illegal pavement parking has also been reported by the contractors.
> Waiting to hear what happens with regards the private hire licence.


Without the TROs, it ain't illegal? Or at least, it's a grey area that the council will not act on?


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Jul 2015)

I've reported the cycle path parking as well - had to use the generic 'contact us' form on the website as there doesn't appear to be anyway of reporting it directly.

If i hear nothing back within a few days I'll email the local councilor who does seem to respond pretty well to requests for help...


----------



## classic33 (9 Jul 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> Without the TROs, it ain't illegal? Or at least, it's a grey area that the council will not act on?


Pavement parking is illegal. No grey areas involved.
No new orders/regulations required. Pictures were dated & timed so they can't argue on that point.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Sep 2015)

The work on this scheme (in East Leeds at least) is taking an age and weeks go by with very little appearing to happen.
The quality of work looks pretty poor in places too - rough tarmac, gutters higher than the road surface (so water won't drain into them), other places where rain water simply sits rather than draining away, the list goes on.
It also appears that bus shelters have been placed so that cyclists will have to ride through the bus queue near Ebor Gardens...


----------



## Flying Dodo (13 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> So it's not a safe design. You don't only have to give way to the side road, but traffic behind you on the main road. I can't look through 270 degrees at once - can you? If not, it's not possible to use that layout safely. Would anyone like to calculate how far to one's left a rear-view mirror would need to stick out to give useful visibility back over one's right shoulder?
> 
> So it's contrary to official guidance, policy and the original plans agreed with cycling groups, but it's being funded from "Cycle City Ambition" budget. Not much ambition being shown there, is there?
> 
> ...



You're right. However the main reason why councils put in that sort of design is that (sadly) in the UK motor traffic has priority. Cyclists don't have the legal backing, nor, more importantly, the culture that is inherent in places like the Netherlands. There, by default, drivers slow down and wait for cyclists crossing junctions as a) they often have priority and b) if they hit a cyclist, then the driver has to prove the cyclist was at fault.

It's going to take a lot of time for coucils to decide to put stop lines on roads before the cycle lane rather than after. But yes, the more we as cyclists push back and complain about poor and unsafe design, the better, and hopefully things will change.


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Sep 2015)

I've been out and cycled a section of the Cycle Super Highway (CSH) today - here is what I found.

I started at the Ring Rd / Barwick Rd junction in East Leeds on my road bike and headed towards Leeds on the same side of the A64 as traffic also heading that way. Although not officially open, this section appears to be effectively completed apart from signage (the poles are in, but no signs fixed on them yet).
The surface is that slick black tarmac that hides imperfections and has a habit of retaining ice during the winter. No-one has yet explained what processes have been put in place to keep the CSH running year round, but Leeds Council do not grit / clear pavements outside a small area in the city centre so it seems unlikely that gritting / clearing the cycleway has been budgeted for.
On my road bike, the initially smooth looking surface is actually quite poor and rough to ride on in places and there are several changes of aspect that aren't easily identifiable from the saddle. In places it is bordering on uncomfortable to ride on. There are also ridges where joints in the tarmac surface could have been resolved better.
More concerning is that in many places the CSH isn't wide enough for two bikes to comfortably pass each other - faster riders are going to have to drop onto the adjoining path or the road to get round other cyclists safely. This is a recurring theme.
Where the CSH crossed side roads, the CSH has priority and this is marked by "Give Way" lines on the roads and the roadway is raised in a 'cushion' for cyclists to ride across - however cyclists will still have to check up to 360 degrees around them at these points due to road layout. There are also sharp turns coming off these sections, so there will be a need to slow down to avoid overshooting onto the pathway (perhaps this is deliberate? I suspect not though...). I ended this ride at the junction with Foundry Lane (Killingbeck Police Station), feeling underwhelmed at what has been delivered given the timescales and cost.

Heading back the other way up the hill, this time on my hybrid.
The section past the new fire station is not yet complete, so I joined the CSH at the junction with Inglewood Drive. This section also appears virtually complete apart from the signs.
Whilst the hybrid is a more forgiving ride, the surface still didn't feel great. Again, the CSH is too narrow for two bikes to comfortably pass in many places, which appears to be a basic design fault and it's difficult to believe that this got past the drawing board stage. Again, the surface is that slick black tarmac. Whilst I used the CSH, two cyclists on passed me on the A64 dual carriageway. read into that what you will.
The layout here suggests it will be a "shared space" rather than segregated cycleway / path as on the other side of the road.
At the brow of the hill by the Aldi, works are still ongoing, but to be blunt the junction with York Rd / Barwick Rd looks downright dangerous.
The CSH hugs the kerb right next to the dual carriageway and goes straight across the mouth of the junction (crossing what is currently currently a ghost island), so again cyclists will need 360 degree awareness before proceeding ,even with right of way (presumed given all other junctions on this section) as traffic turning off the 40mph A64 will be right on top of them, along with the need to cross traffic queuing on York Rd to join the dual carriageway. Dangerous doesn't even appear to cover it.
The next section is laid out but unfinished and again suffers from a lack of room to pass without going onto the adjacent footway.
From here the CSH turns to use side streets running parallel to the A6120, which isn't ideal but is a better option than using the 70mph dual carriageway!
At the top of Hansby Drive the CSH takes a new tarmaced section through a hedge and alongside the dual carriageway to the Windmill Roundabout. This is OK, but the hedges are the type with inch long thorns which are shed all over the new surface - signifying a lack of practical thinking during the design / planning stages again.
From here the CSH crosses the incredibly busy York Rd / Seacroft Gate (A64/A6120 roundabout, 24 hour Tesco) directly off the roundabout which is busy and for long parts to the day will necessitate judging gaps in traffic off the roundabout one way and then negotiating traffic queuing to get onto the roundabout going the other way to get across.
It then used existing underpasses as 'shared space' to negotiate the roundabout. These subways are narrow and prone to flooding in moderate rainfall - a problem that has been known about for at least 5 years, but which has yet to be resolved. 

So, a less than impressive first ride to be honest, which is a crying shame. This was a once in a generation chance to really make an impact and a lack of practicality, combined with poor surfaces really has seems to have let at least this section of the scheme down.


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Sep 2015)

NorthernDave said:


> ... a less than impressive first ride to be honest, which is a crying shame. This was a once in a generation chance to really make an impact and a lack of practicality, combined with poor surfaces really has seems to have let at least this section of the scheme down.


Just a tuppennyworth - that's the "glass half empty" pov?

The "glass-half-full" - it's far better than I expected. Some good work, retrofitting segregation into some very unforgiving situations. I've been riding bits of the same stretch for weeks now. It is "Pootlers' Way", slow - and damned good for lazy, leisurely cycling. If my kids were still young enough, I'd happily use it with them. Or do my shopping trips on it. So far, the raised cushion and Give Way signage across junctions has worked well for me - but that may be down to drivers being confused; could well be different once they're used to it.

For the commute 
- 25mph+ downhill? That's what the road is for! 
- >10mph and the granny gear hill climbs? I'm very glad of the CSH.

For the budget, we were never going to get the complete realignment of York Road. Not even of the Melbourne and Barwick roundabouts.


----------



## Pete Owens (15 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> But @Milkfloat even if they stopped trying today, there would be all the crap they've already built. The cheapest and possibly best way forwards is if they fix the crap.


The cheapest and best way forwards is simply to remove all the crap. 

Return all the shared use pavements to the exclusive use of their legitimater users - pedestrians.
That solves the problem of dangerous left hooks at a stroke.

Remove all the narrow (less than 2m wide) cycle lanes - instantly returning more road space to cyclists.

Now of course this might not please the segregation fundamentalists, for who will champion any dangerous rubbish so long as it has a cycle symbol painted on it - but it would be welcomed by anyone who argues for legally enforsable standards.


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> The cheapest and best way forwards is simply to remove all the crap.


Removing would indeed be one way of fixing the crap and is definitely appropriate in some places, but:



> Return all the shared use pavements to the exclusive use of their legitimater users - pedestrians.
> That solves the problem of dangerous left hooks at a stroke.


Hardly solves it! I've been left-hooked while riding on the carriageway, saved only by performing an emergency turn, and I doubt I'm the only one.

Also, let's return the _crap conversions_, but keep some purpose-built/rebuilt cycle tracks which are pretty good. Let's not throw the babies out with the bathwater. 



> Remove all the narrow (less than 2m wide) cycle lanes - instantly returning more road space to cyclists.


I can't think of any place where that particular move wouldn't help right now... maybe offer highway authorities the alternative of making cycle lanes 2m+ wide instead of removing them?



> Now of course this might not please the segregation fundamentalists, for who will champion any dangerous rubbish so long as it has a cycle symbol painted on it - but ...


Why would anyone worry about "segregation fundamentalists" who don't actually exist outside of the imagination of a few right-to-the-roads fundamentalists?


----------



## MarkF (15 Sep 2015)

Bradford is extremely hilly, the centre sits in a bowl, I'll be amazed if this sees much use at all. I often commute cycling from the North near the canal and across the centre, I doubt that I see another cycling commuter 1 day in 10. The Bradford-Leeds canal highway is a dogs dinner too, a hotch potch of different surfaces, some very poor and daft cobbled speed bumps at the bottom of locks.

Residents fume at traffic chaos caused by Thornbury roundabout cycleway roadworks


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2015)

MarkF said:


> Bradford is extremely hilly, the centre sits in a bowl, I'll be amazed if this sees much use at all.


Bristol is extremely hilly and The Centre sits in a bowl, yet it has quite a lot of people cycling there. Admittedly Bristol have done well with a few flattish routes, but Bradford's flattish routes seem to run North-South and the major roads have some of the flattest whereas I'm guessing the primary desire line is East towards Leeds...


----------



## MarkF (15 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> Bristol is extremely hilly and The Centre sits in a bowl, yet it has quite a lot of people cycling there. Admittedly Bristol have done well with a few flattish routes, but Bradford's flattish routes seem to run North-South and the major roads have some of the flattest whereas I'm guessing the primary desire line is East towards Leeds...



I don't think Bradford (central) has any flatish routes at all, I live in the Aire Valley, north of Bradford and that (W-E) is very busy with cyclists, as is the canal.


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2015)

mjray said:


> Bristol is extremely hilly and The Centre sits in a bowl, yet it has quite a lot of people cycling there. Admittedly Bristol have done well with a few flattish routes, but Bradford's flattish routes seem to run North-South and the major roads have some of the flattest whereas I'm guessing the primary desire line is East towards Leeds...


Coming to & from Bingley/Shipley is about the flattest route I can think of. Other than that its nearly all uphill out of Bradford. The road to Queensbury has a bit of a slope on it though.


----------



## MarkF (15 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Coming to & from Bingley/Shipley is about the flattest route I can think of. Other than that its nearly all uphill out of Bradford. The road to Queensbury has a bit of a slope on it though.



Yes, that's the bit I use into Bradford, Canal Road.


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2015)

MarkF said:


> Yes, that's the bit I use into Bradford, Canal Road.


The "Low Route' & not the "High Route"!


----------



## PMarkey (15 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> The road to Queensbury has a bit of a slope on it though.


Nice easy run into both Halifax and Bradford though  

Paul


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> Nice easy run into both Halifax and Bradford though
> 
> Paul


Getting back as easy?


----------



## NorthernDave (15 Sep 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> Just a tuppennyworth - that's the "glass half empty" pov?
> 
> The "glass-half-full" - it's far better than I expected. Some good work, retrofitting segregation into some very unforgiving situations. I've been riding bits of the same stretch for weeks now. It is "Pootlers' Way", slow - and damned good for lazy, leisurely cycling. If my kids were still young enough, I'd happily use it with them. Or do my shopping trips on it. So far, the raised cushion and Give Way signage across junctions has worked well for me - but that may be down to drivers being confused; could well be different once they're used to it.
> 
> ...



Sorry if my earlier post came across as overly negative, but it's incredibly frustrating to see what should be a world class piece of infrastructure beset by such a series of poor planning, poor layout and perhaps worst of all, poor finishing. I'd also politely suggest that 25 mph downhill would be easily achievable to virtually anyone using the CSH simply by freewheeling on long sections of the route, so that will be quite commonplace and the layout / surface quality should reflect that.

Obviously a segregated cycleway on a key arterial route is a good thing, but it could have been so much better with a little though. The real problems lie a decade or more ago though, when LCC and Metro were persuaded to to install a hugely expensive guided busway down much of York Road, where the tram / monorail / maglev should have gone. This is now only used by one of the four bus companies that operate on the route, with the rest of the buses using the ordinary carriageway. This means that space that could have been given up to a proper integrated transport solution for all road users simply isn't there any more.

That said, there are more direct and dare I say easier to cycle routes from Leeds city centre out to the east - a more sensible solution for anyone heading outbound from (say) the Selby Rd junction would be to go along the Wykebeck Valley Cycleway and then up South Parkway, where there is currently ample room to put in a fully segregated cycleway before the redevelopment of the area gets underway.
Similarly from Foundry Lane, the route could have moved away from York Rd completely and crossed the playing fields to rejoin the existing route at Stocks Approach - a shorter route, with a lesser gradient and fully away from traffic and pollution.

My final bugbear (for now) is the section up past Ebor Gardens, which (again) isn't wide enough for two bikes to safely pass in many places and thanks to ridiculous repositioning of the bus stops AFTER the CSH work, means that cyclists will be forced to squeeze between passengers queuing at bus stops on their way up the hill. 

In many ways it's a typical Leeds City Council outcome - a basically good idea, poorly executed.


----------



## PMarkey (15 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Getting back as easy?


Getting back is character building no matter which way you aproach Queensbury to be honest 


Paul


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> Getting back is character building no matter which way you aproach Queensbury to be honest
> 
> 
> Paul


Up from Holmfield via Windy Bank Lane?


----------



## PMarkey (15 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Up from Holmfield via Windy Bank Lane?


https://www.strava.com/activities/274332368

Getting back on topic , I've not ridden the CSH only seen it in passing as I have to go into the LGI most weeks and have to agree that it's sub optimal really but may appeal more to occasional cyclists rather than seasoned cyclists or commuters and have to agree it's on opportunity missed .


----------



## youngoldbloke (17 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> https://www.strava.com/activities/274332368
> 
> Getting back on topic , I've not ridden the CSH only seen it in passing as I have to go into the LGI most weeks and have to agree that it's sub optimal really but may appeal more to occasional cyclists rather than seasoned cyclists or commuters and have to agree it's on opportunity missed .


Great value for money then? How do these schemes cost SO much????


----------



## MarkF (17 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> https://www.strava.com/activities/274332368
> 
> Getting back on topic , I've not ridden the CSH only seen it in passing as I have to go into the LGI most weeks and have to agree that it's sub optimal really but may appeal more to occasional cyclists rather than seasoned cyclists or commuters and have to agree it's on opportunity missed .



The "casual cyclists" are on the canal, I don't see any others anywhere else in Bradford. It'll never be a cycling city, it is far too hilly and the driving is horrendous, unless you live here cycle across Bradford you wouldn't believe it, once I am over the Leeds border then I can calm down..



youngoldbloke said:


> Great value for money then? How do these schemes cost SO much????



Have you seen the state of the new multi £1m canal path? IMO this is where all the cash should have been spent, widening a 20 mile flat route connecting all the Aire Valley towns with Leeds & Bradford.


----------



## PMarkey (17 Sep 2015)

Councils have a knack of spending money like water ?


----------



## albion (17 Sep 2015)

Pete Owens said:


> At least they havent installed fences:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/May2015.htm


Not in use or no one using it?

I cant see any sign of a track on either side of that obstacle, the route most commuters will choose.


----------



## PMarkey (17 Sep 2015)

MarkF said:


> The "casual cyclists" are on the canal, I don't see any others anywhere else in Bradford. It'll never be a cycling city, it is far too hilly and the driving is horrendous, unless you live here cycle across Bradford you wouldn't believe it, once I am over the Leeds border then I can calm down..


Have to agree with it being to hilly for to encourage cycling for the general public and the driving standard in Bradford leaves a lot to be desired , Thankfully I live in Queensbury so just head down the other side towards Halifax , Hebbden and Todmordon where drivers on the whole are more considerate but again most of the casual cyclists ride on the canal towpath rather than the road .


Paul


----------



## mjr (17 Sep 2015)

youngoldbloke said:


> Great value for money then? How do these schemes cost SO much????


Most cycling schemes are budgeted as short-term one-off grant-funded projects and so often, everything that can be billed to them is... whereas most motoring schemes are seen as part of routine capital and revenue budgets and many of the associated costs are regarded as routine overheads. Councils that are highway authorities will soon publish their draft budgets for the year from next April - dig into them - how little cycling gets from the routine budgets is shocking.


MarkF said:


> Bradford. It'll never be a cycling city, it is far too hilly and the driving is horrendous, unless you live here cycle across Bradford you wouldn't believe it, once I am over the Leeds border then I can calm down..


I've worked in Bradford but I don't think I ever took my bike. I know it's hilly, but I don't remember the hills being that much more severe than other cities. What I do remember is that cars seemed to dominate all the shortest and flattest routes, whereas places like Bristol and Sheffield have made some effort to reclaim some space for both walking and cycling. I don't really understand what the West Yorkshire councils are playing at.


----------



## MarkF (17 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> Have to agree with it being to hilly for to encourage cycling for the general public and the driving standard in Bradford leaves a lot to be desired , Thankfully I live in Queensbury so just head down the other side towards Halifax , Hebbden and Todmordon where drivers on the whole are more considerate but again most of the casual cyclists ride on the canal towpath rather than the road .
> 
> 
> Paul



I am lucky and live by the canal so have the Aire Valley to ride on and climbs either side if I fancy it.  I often climb out of the centre via Bolton Road, I've never yet seen another cyclist in that very wide and largely ignored (by drivers) cycle lane and I've been using it for 5 years!

The canal is and was very well used, but re-surfacing sections has attracted fast commuters on road bikes, that's not not going too well, it hasn't been widened.............


----------



## classic33 (18 Sep 2015)

PMarkey said:


> Councils have a knack of spending money like water ?


Soon be able to travel beneath you, with a bit of luck.


----------



## classic33 (18 Sep 2015)

MarkF said:


> I am lucky and live by the canal so have the Aire Valley to ride on and climbs either side if I fancy it.  I often climb out of the centre via Bolton Road, I've never yet seen another cyclist in that very wide and largely ignored (by drivers) cycle lane and I've been using it for 5 years!
> 
> The canal is and was very well used, but re-surfacing sections has attracted fast commuters on road bikes, that's not not going too well, it hasn't been widened.............


See four wheels & pedal power out that way, chances are its me.


----------



## MarkF (18 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> See four wheels & pedal power out that way, chances are its me.



Pic please.


----------



## classic33 (18 Sep 2015)

MarkF said:


> Pic please.








Small flatbed now fitted at the rear.


----------



## Pete Owens (7 Oct 2015)

That stretch for the super farcility looks positively enlightened compared to this:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2015.htm


----------



## Schneil (28 Oct 2015)

My mother commented today on how the CSH has already been turned into a place for cars to park. Despite there being clear kerbs etc that the cars would have had to have driven over.


----------



## classic33 (28 Oct 2015)

Schneil said:


> My mother commented today on how the CSH has already been turned into a place for cars to park. Despite there being clear kerbs etc that the cars would have had to have driven over.


That possiblity was given to Bradford Council, who dismissed it as "never likely to occur".


----------



## Schneil (28 Oct 2015)

classic33 said:


> That possiblity was given to Bradford Council, who dismissed it as "never likely to occur".


Do you know who at Bradford council said that?

I've asked her to take a picture next time she's that way and send it to the local MP and councillor. I'll ask her to send it to the "never likely to occur" person at Bradford council as well. Even though the final CSH isn't great, it still cost a lot of public money to build, and it's not good enough if a few selfish people render it useless.


----------



## mjr (28 Oct 2015)

Parking on a cycle track is an unambiguous offence, unlike parking on a footway (where the offence is driving on it not parking), so Bradford council could be raking it in with tickets if they cared about cycling.


----------



## classic33 (28 Oct 2015)

Schneil said:


> Do you know who at Bradford council said that?
> 
> I've asked her to take a picture next time she's that way and send it to the local MP and councillor. I'll ask her to send it to the "never likely to occur" person at Bradford council as well. Even though the final CSH isn't great, it still cost a lot of public money to build, and it's not good enough if a few selfish people render it useless.


Question asked over the phone at the town hall offices. Later repeated at a cabinet meeting. The only answer other than what's been given by cabinet, is we'll look into it.


mjray said:


> Parking on a cycle track is an unambiguous offence, unlike parking on a footway (where the offence is driving on it not parking), so Bradford council could be raking it in with tickets if they cared about cycling.


Parking enforcement seldom make it out that far. Not enough to cover the city centre.


----------



## MarkF (3 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Parking on a cycle track is an unambiguous offence, unlike parking on a footway (where the offence is driving on it not parking), so Bradford council could be raking it in with tickets if they cared about cycling.



I didn't know that, I know that all the cycle lanes around BCFC will be blocked with cars for tonight's game, as they are for every game.

Latest:- http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....erhighway_route_reaches_Bradford_city_centre/

Th canal has not been worked on for months, and the what was always the worst stretch (Calverley Woods/Rodley) has never been touched.  Still, me and Mrs F use it every Saturday morning, Shipley to Leeds and, beer permitting, a return.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Jan 2016)

Couldn't help but notice that the finished sections of the CSH from Seacroft into Leeds the last couple of mornings appears to have no form of treatment / gritting for ice, judging by the glistening blacktop and white frost - plus of course the majority of cyclists who normally use it being back on the main carriageway.
And who can blame them? The surface on the cycleway is that hideous shiny smooth black tarmac that is slippery enough at the best of times, but when iced up? I wouldn't go near it myself.
Which raises the question - this is hardly unusual weather, yet it seems that the CSH is effectively out of use when the temperature approaches zero, despite the huge amount of money that has been thrown at it (which is still regularly generating letters to the local paper)?
Any of the 'get on the cycle path' brigade must have been apoplectic this week...


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2016)

Cycle tracks seem completely absent from Bradford's gritting policy so I've asked https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/687576916602257408

At least that's better than Norfolk's explicit refusal!


----------



## mjr (14 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Cambridge brought a special gritting machine for its cycle paths several years ago...
> ...but no-one is qualified/insured to use it.


http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/in...thways/111/gritting_roads_cycleways_and_paths makes it look like they're gritting them somehow now.


----------



## rideswithmoobs (20 Jan 2016)

howard2107 said:


> The standard of driving is atrocious, the highway code has no relevance, and road markings are there just to break up the monotony of the black tarmac, park what you want where you want drive how you want, using your mobile phone is mandatory, and speed limits! what the hell are they for? its like driving through a third world country. The cycle lane maybe pants, but it is far safer than the 3 lane death race at the side of it. Its no wonder that BD postcodes make up about 6 of the top ten highest motor insurance risks in the country, with BD3 having the highest population of uninsured drivers in the country to boot.
> 
> Cheers...........Howard



Cannot in anyway disagree with this. Having lived in Bradford till I was 30 years old and still have parents there, I think this is honest if very restrained view that many bradfordians have.


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Jan 2016)

News from the Leeds end

"Parking enforcement of the superhighway will begin on 3rd May. The parking enforcement officers, will be provided with bikes to allow effective patrols of the whole length."

and

"City Centre plans are expected to go out for consultation in May. Although this is a delay to the original scheme, it is expected that the city centre plans will be more ambitious due to additional funding."


----------



## MarkF (30 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> News from the Leeds end
> 
> "Parking enforcement of the superhighway will begin on 3rd May. *The parking enforcement officers, will be provided with bikes to allow effective patrols of the whole length."*
> 
> ...



I'd have liked that job! Hopefully they'll be similar positions for the canal, even better.

These "officers" have zero chance in Bradford, as per previous posts, what is normal vehicular behaviour in Bradford would seem extremely bizarre elsewhere including Leeds. Far too many "pool" cars in the inner City for a start, no tax/insurance/owners, so what are they going to do? Getting cars to park legally in Bradford is impossible task.


----------



## NorthernDave (30 Jan 2016)

There have been signs erected on the CSH in East Leeds (well, the intermittent sections that have been completed) banning parking for a few weeks now, so its strange that they won't be enforcing this until May - but it could explain why its being routinely ignored.
What's more concerning is that work on the unfinished sections seem to have all but stopped, with parts where work hasn't even started yet...


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Jan 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> What's more concerning is that work on the unfinished sections seem to have all but stopped, with parts where work hasn't even started yet...


Could be weather related?


----------



## classic33 (30 Jan 2016)

MarkF said:


> I'd have liked that job! Hopefully they'll be similar positions for the canal, even better.
> 
> These "officers" have zero chance in Bradford, as per previous posts, what is normal vehicular behaviour in Bradford would seem extremely bizarre elsewhere including Leeds. Far too many "pool" cars in the inner City for a start, no tax/insurance/owners, so what are they going to do? Getting cars to park legally in Bradford is impossible task.


And that's just the private hire & taxis


----------



## MarkF (31 Jan 2016)

classic33 said:


> And that's just the private hire & taxis



That's another problem, who's driving them? What is the car's condition? Nobody knows because a good % are on Rossendale plates and the council cannot stop & check them. Add on the fun day hire cars, to the no owner pool cars and out-of-town taxis and it'll be fun watching what happens.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a cycle path at which the cyclist has to give way at a road junction.
> 
> So what?
> 
> ...




It is also dangerous as it puts cyclists in the wrong position to assess the junction

From John Franklin (Cyclecraft author)



> The difficulty of looking behind on a bike has important consequences for road-side paths and explains their poor safety record. The image below shows how the road cyclist can use positioning to emphasise his presence and may then concentratehis attention ahead. The path cyclist, however, cannot exert any influence on drivers behind, and needs to look through a very wide arc for possible conflict. This is very difficult to do, even when stopped.


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

Cunobelin said:


>


Sadly rubbish because unless the oncoming lane is both narrow and occupied (as illustrated, disingenuously), the road cyclist is also at risk of left hooking and is better off if they keep checking behind. I suspect it's not that motorists can't see cyclists, whether on road or path: it's that a dangerous few just don't care.

Edit: and the illustrated junction layout is contrary to guidance because the cycle track should be either right next to the carriageway or one car length into the side road. Some like that exist, but shouldn't.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2016)

......it may be a surprise 

Not all cycle ways are built to the !

I am also afraid that I have to disagree totally, the sight lines of the cyclist on the path are compromised

As for the left hook note the use of the words "may", "can" and "emphasise"

This is called the Primary position and used correctly prevents and reduces left hooks and other maneouvres

The Primary position is hardly rubbish


----------



## mjr (31 Jan 2016)

Primary position is a good idea but it only reduces left hooks. It cannot prevent them (they just drive round you if the oncoming lane is clear, or wide enough they feel they can bully other motorists into moving over) and it's a good idea to look behind, and you'll need to look further round than if on a good cycle track but that doesn't fit JF's case so he pretends you don't and that's what's rubbish.


----------



## DCLane (31 Jan 2016)

Last Monday I had a go at following the route for this from Leeds-Bradford.

Personally, having ridding along the route, it's a crazy choice. Why not go through Tong village or similar instead?

It's full of junctions and places where any rider will have to swerve all over; I forsee accidents and little use while cyclists stay on the road or take a better/safer alternative.


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Jan 2016)

DCLane said:


> Last Monday I had a go at following the route for this from Leeds-Bradford.
> 
> Personally, having ridding along the route, it's a crazy choice. Why not go through Tong village or similar instead?
> 
> It's full of junctions and places where any rider will have to swerve all over; I forsee accidents and little use while cyclists stay on the road or take a better/safer alternative.


Ummm - a little harsh, maybe? It's a utility route serving Leeds, Bradford, and loads of places in between. Not a "sight-seeing" route between Leeds and Bradford? 

I know the York Road sections most, and will very happily use bits of it. The uphills - yes. The downhills - not at 25mph on the commute, but laden with shopping? Yes. Or just out relaxing? Yes. Heading for the station, without busting a gut? Yes.




[Edited] Just looking at the photos of the Bradford end. Now that *****s me off no end. Just bonkers, some of those junctions. What happened to coherent standards of good design? Out the bleedin' window. 

So different from the section through east Leeds.

Must break the habit of a lifetime, and take a leisure ride through to Bradford one day.


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Feb 2016)

Cycled the section from Barwick Rd roundabout down to Killingbeck in East Leeds this morning as i had to go to Britains Biggest bike Retailer to collect an order.
I've posted my concerns about this before and now the downhill section (on the Cross gates side of the A64) appears finished I thought I'd give it a go.

As a cyclist I really don't want to be overly critical of it, but it's not good is it?
In many places on this relatively short section, the CSH is too narrow for two bikes to safely pass each other. It wanders about, with a couple of excessively tight turns, and although cyclists have priority crossing the side roads coming down the hill, when you get to the Shell filling station / Kwik Fit (just where a conflict is likely due to more cars crossing the CSH) it appears to be a free for all with no markings to indicate who has right of way.
Anyone who is capable of any speed (which is pretty much any competent cyclist considering it's all downhill) is going to try it and then go back to riding on the dual carriageway, risking the ire of the 'get on the cycle path' brigade. And given the nature of the route it's hardly likely to appeal to leisure cyclists who have other alternatives locally.
coming back up the hill, there is a really good mini-slip road joining the CSH from Foundry lane, which is excellent, but then the faults of the other side of the road are all repeated. It's too narrow in too many places for a start. The quality of the work in a lot of areas isn't great and the 'uphill' section still isn't finished with the council working by the fire station again today.
despite the section by Aldi being apparently finished, it spits you across the mouth of the junction of Old York Rd / Barwick Road where the road markings still haven't been updated, making it dangerous even if you're paying attention, then a few more narrow chicanes and three different choices of path on the corner by the roundabout. The CSH then dips onto the estate road to climb the hill (which is fair enough), but then where it crosses the grass verge between Stock Approach and Hansby Drive, it's wider than the road it joins!
Final comment, where it leaves you to cross the dual carriageway at York Rd by the Windmill roundabout is also poorly designed, unclearly marked and presents a danger to users.
This should be a great route to hold up as an example of what can be achieved as a purpose built dedicated cycle route, but there are far too many faults and compromises in it.


----------



## MarkF (16 May 2016)

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....ford_cycle_superhighway__used_as_a_car_park_/

How predictable,  I know it's wrong, but hell, nobody is cycling in the bloody thing!


----------



## youngoldbloke (16 May 2016)

I reckon this is going to rumble on for a long long time in the area - it would seem from reports that it's not fit for purpose, 'consultation'with cycling groups effectively ignored, likely to be very little used, etc, etc, - the inevitable result being increased friction between cyclists and drivers, and so on, and on, and on ........


----------



## NorthernDave (16 May 2016)

youngoldbloke said:


> I reckon this is going to rumble on for a long long time in the area - it would seem from reports that it's not fit for purpose, 'consultation'with cycling groups effectively ignored, likely to be very little used, etc, etc, - the inevitable result being increased friction between cyclists and drivers, and so on, and on, and on ........



That about covers it. £29 million wasted.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2016)

youngoldbloke said:


> I reckon this is going to rumble on for a long long time in the area - it would seem from reports that it's not fit for purpose, 'consultation'with cycling groups effectively ignored, likely to be very little used, etc, etc, - the inevitable result being increased friction between cyclists and drivers, and so on, and on, and on ........


Bradfords own cycling officer said it was "very badly needed by those who cycle", at the planning stage!


----------



## NorthernDave (18 May 2016)

It's taken a slating in the Yorkshire Evening Post today as well (and quite rightly so), even if the article is full of sloppy errors.
For example they state the completion date of "spring" has been put back to June - I have two issues with that - firstly the original completion date was December last year, which has been progressively moved back. A few weeks ago the signs were changed to read "Spring 2016" and they've been changed again this week to read "Summer 2016".
Secondly that still seems wildly optimistic considering they haven't even started on sections of it (including the pinch points at the Shaftesbury Junction, and inbound past Seacroft Hospital).

This quote says it all: _Roger Geffen MBE, policy director at the Cycling UK charity, has been quoted as saying City Connect (Leeds City Council, Bradford Council and West Yorkshire Combined Authority initiative to deliver the scheme) “is a compelling case for national design standards to ensure that funds earmarked for cycling are not wasted”_

The article is here and try not to laugh / cry as you realise that £29 million is being spent on this joke:
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....-superhighway-will-set-cycling-back-1-7916928


----------



## toffee (18 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> It's taken a slating in the Yorkshire Evening Post today as well (and quite rightly so), even if the article is full of sloppy errors.
> For example they state the completion date of "spring" has been put back to June - I have two issues with that - firstly the original completion date was December last year, which has been progressively moved back. A few weeks ago the signs were changed to read "Spring 2016" and they've been changed again this week to read "Summer 2016".
> Secondly that still seems wildly optimistic considering they haven't even started on sections of it (including the pinch points at the Shaftesbury Junction, and inbound past Seacroft Hospital).
> 
> ...



There are certainly not happy "Up North"

Derek


----------



## growingvegetables (18 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> ......._ a compelling case for national design standards to ensure that funds earmarked for cycling are not wasted_


+1. A thousand times over.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> +1. A thousand times over.


How it ends in Bradford.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> It's taken a slating in the Yorkshire Evening Post today as well (and quite rightly so), even if the article is full of sloppy errors.



The biggest of the errors? Who is to blame. 

Rumour (well-founded?) has it that the Leeds and Bradford cycling guys heard about the government funding, went out for a drink together, and hatched up some fantastical plan for a brilliant segregated cycling scheme on the back of an envelope. No harm in dreaming, they thought. The bid'll never fly, they thought. Not a snowball's chance in hell, they said .......

.......... and panicked mightily when the bid was accepted! Oh sh**!

But that's not where the blame lies.


It does lie squarely with *three* (I believe) guys, whose job in the authority is, effectively, to play Grand Theft Auto. All day. Every day. OK - it's not actually GTA, but it IS a computer simulation game, modelling traffic flows.

Their job is to maximise motor traffic flow. Nothing else. Whatever idea for road improvement comes up, has to pass by them. They model its effect on motorised traffic flow with their game. 

If flow speeds up (on their model!), idea gets the go ahead; so we get extra, narrower lanes squeezed into what was once a comfortable two lane street. That's not a problem for them, it's a solution. (It may be a problem for me on the bike, but I don't count.) 

But if there is the slightest hindrance to the flow of motorised vehicles, these three guys have the power of veto. Absolute. Definitive. No way, José. *Cyclists? Pedestrians? The short pier's that way - take a long walk.*


I look at some of the stuff that's happening in London now - and compare it with what we've got. What we'll have to live with for the next 30 years.


----------



## PMarkey (19 May 2016)

Bradford has always bowed low to the great god "CAR" just look at the nightmare that is the Shipley Airdale road or the city centre and who could ever forget the great Manchester road bus lane debacle ? 

Paul


----------



## mjr (19 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> If flow speeds up (on their model!), idea gets the go ahead; so we get extra, narrower lanes squeezed into what was once a comfortable two lane street. That's not a problem for them, it's a solution. (It may be a problem for me on the bike, but I don't count.)


Oh it's worse than that. You do count. As a drawback. In certain circumstances. Light-controlled crossings like cycle early start lights (bike symbols) or toucans/puffins (where a cycle track crosses a carriageway) count, which is why Leeds cyclists can't get "green wave" effects (let alone actual green wave or countdown lights).

But worthless uncontrolled "courtesy" crossings where motorists are expected to let cyclists cross when they are not required to (hah! Yeah, right!) don't count, which is why we only get that unsafe crap at some junctions - until some people get injured and they can appeal to a casualty reduction argument for overruling the motoring flow. But of course, if a crossing is obviously worthless and there's any half-decent alternative, people aren't going to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, they're just going to be deflected to the alternative... or if there are too many such deflections, it may encourage them to switch to motor transport.

There are two silver linings:

First, I think the new "tiger" crossings (where a cycle track crosses alongside a zebra crossing) don't yet count in the most common obnoxious modelling packages (Linsig, Arcady and so on), so try pushing for those. This is probably a temporary thing, though.

Secondly, there's a modelling package called Vissim which does count cycling and walking, so try pushing for that to be used for roads/junctions which are meant to be on strategic cycling and walking routes. Most councils refuse to use it, but that can be a press story in itself ("Council refuses to cater for humans" type stuff).


----------



## MarkF (19 May 2016)

PMarkey said:


> Bradford has always bowed low to the great god "CAR" just look at the nightmare that is the Shipley Airdale road or the city centre and who could ever forget the great Manchester road bus lane debacle ?
> 
> Paul



I used the Canal Rd greenway on Monday, it was very pleasant from Shipley, but far from being a Shipley to Bradford centre route as is claimed, it peters out and then onto Bradford's busiest road 1.5 miles short!

The money wasted on the superhighway would have been better spent improving and widening the canal towpath. Providing a dedicated cycling lane from Leeds to Skipton along the ..........flat........Aire Valley.

I am giving it up soon, I can't cross Bradford for much longer, I am fine in traffic but the recent trend for pavement driving, with apparent impunity, is step too far for me, if driving on the pavements is ok, then I'm out.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 May 2016)

I was out on a 70km ride yesterday and a 50km ride today and it was great. Lots of super smooth, wide cycle paths with very few cyclists out. I passed the workman building another 5 mile section of cyclepath with a lovely bridge and pond. All the traffic at junctions gave way to me. Nobody honked or shouted abuse at me and on the sections where there was no cycle path I was given lots of room. I never felt in danger.

Im not surprised. Its been like this for 13 years.

I feel sorry for you lot. Who needs a holiday in Denmark


----------



## classic33 (19 May 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I was out on a 70km ride yesterday and a 50km ride today and it was great. Lots of super smooth, wide cycle paths with very few cyclists out. I passed the workman building another 5 mile section of cyclepath with a lovely bridge and pond. All the traffic at junctions gave way to me. Nobody honked or shouted abuse at me and on the sections where there was no cycle path I was given lots of room. I never felt in danger.
> 
> Im not surprised. Its been like this for 13 years.
> 
> I feel sorry for you lot. *Who needs a holiday in Denmark*


Try one in Leeds or Bradford. It'll make you appreciate what you have got all the more.


----------



## classic33 (19 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> The biggest of the errors? Who is to blame.
> 
> Rumour (well-founded?) has it that the Leeds and Bradford cycling guys heard about the government funding, went out for a drink together, and hatched up some fantastical plan for a brilliant segregated cycling scheme on the back of an envelope. No harm in dreaming, they thought. The bid'll never fly, they thought. Not a snowball's chance in hell, they said .......
> 
> ...


One of those three we had in Calderdale, before he moved onto Kirklee's


----------



## atbman (22 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> How it ends in Bradford.
> View attachment 128985


 
You misunderstand the purpose of this. This is on Church HIll, a rather steep road out of the centre of Bradford. They have generously provided a safe and secure parking facility for your bike while you recover your breath after the steepest section. You can then unlock your bike, push it across the side road and along the pavement until you reach a part of the gradient where you feel able to start riding again.

Obvs


----------



## classic33 (22 May 2016)

atbman said:


> You misunderstand the purpose of this. This is on Church HIll, a rather steep road out of the centre of Bradford. They have generously provided a safe and secure parking facility for your bike while you recover your breath after the steepest section. You can then unlock your bike, push it across the side road and along the pavement until you reach a part of the gradient where you feel able to start riding again.
> 
> Obvs


You mean Church Bank, (City Cathedral)! Church Hill is Baildon, I'm trusting my A-Z on this one.


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

Absinthe Minded said:


> There, that wouldn't be so difficult, would it


You've not been to Bradford then!

Reply nearly a year after it was posted.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> You've not been to Bradford then!


What has having been to Bradford got to do with it?



> Reply nearly a year after it was posted.


Oh, is that not OK; does it say that somewhere? No? So why mention it?


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

Absinthe Minded said:


> What has having been to Bradford got to do with it?
> 
> So why mention it



You'll struggle to find a white taxi driver, so the point made was valid without correction.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> You'll struggle to find a white taxi driver, so the point made was valid without correction.


The point under examination was that of drivers parking in cycle lanes, what relevance is their colour? Also, you have quoted my point regarding reply time frame, but you have neglected to address it. Feel free to air your views here as well.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> You'll struggle to find a white taxi driver, so the point made was valid without correction.



Here is one, didn't struggle at all.


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Here is one, didn't struggle at all.


Keep searching!


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> Keep searching!


I'd prefer to use 1 example, from a small sample size to try and prove my point without the realisation that there isn't many


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'd prefer to use 1 example, from a small sample size to try and prove my point without the realisation that there isn't many


When you get one example, you could then use it.
Check the wording on the windscreen, or the building behind.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> When you get one example, you could then use it.
> Check the wording on the windscreen, or the building behind.



Keighley is close enough to Bradford to be Bradford in my opinion. Especially when it is within the borough of Bradford. And their taxi drivers (should) get their license from Bradford city too.

Unless of course you're referring it to being private hire and not a "taxi". Yet, that would be quite pedantic, as common usage of "taxi" would also include private hire vehicles.


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Keighley is close enough to Bradford to be Bradford in my opinion. Especially when it is within the borough of Bradford. And their taxi drivers (should) get their license from Bradford city too.
> 
> Unless of course you're referring it to being private hire and not a "taxi". Yet, that would be quite pedantic, as common usage of "taxi" would also include private hire vehicles.


Keighley doesn't come under Bradford control, seperate council.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> Keighley doesn't come under Bradford control, seperate council.



"*Keighley* (

i/ˈkiːθli/_*keeth*-lee_) is a town and civil parish within the metropolitan borough of the City of Bradford in West Yorkshire, England."


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> "*Keighley* (
> 
> i/ˈkiːθli/_*keeth*-lee_) is a town and civil parish within the metropolitan borough of the City of Bradford in West Yorkshire, England."


http://www.cravendc.gov.uk/article/1/Craven-District-Council . Also covers Skipton, BD postcode, BD23.


----------



## MarkF (24 May 2016)

I haven't seen a white taxi driver for many years in Bradford, decades maybe, but anyway, I don't think Bradford's driving problems are related to taxi driving or drivers. But at least now the problem seems to be being addressed in the recent crackdown, I don't have my hopes up too high, when driving without insurance or a license in "pool" cars enabling untraceable drivers to use any part of the road or pavement they like, well I think it's gone too far now. It's a specific & obvious Bradford problem, but only in 2 or 3 or BD postcodes.



PhilDawson8270 said:


> Keighley is close enough to Bradford to be Bradford in my opinion. Especially when it is within the borough of Bradford. And their taxi drivers (should) get their license from Bradford city too.



Phil, a lot of Bradford taxi drivers are not even licensed by Bradford, they are licensed by Rossendale! Thus removing the local councils right to spot check the cars and drivers. Still, the drivers have lot to lose with few other employment prospects, I don't think the standard of taxi driving is bad.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> Phil, a lot of Bradford taxi drivers are not even licensed by Bradford, they are licensed by Rossendale! Thus removing the local councils right to spot check the cars and drivers.



Yes, that was mentioned in the article that I found the image from. Hence the (should) in my post.


----------



## mjr (24 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> http://www.cravendc.gov.uk/article/1/Craven-District-Council . Also covers Skipton, BD postcode, BD23.


And yet, on that page, there's this map:




which shows a dot for Keighley bottom right as outside Craven's area.


----------



## MarkF (24 May 2016)

I live in the Aire Valley, to me cycling to Keighley is cycling to a distinctly separate town 10 miles away, it's not a suburb. Good luck with telling a citizen of Keighley that they are part of Bradford!

Anyway.............I am using the £29m cycle lane Bradford to Stanningley later, I'll report back on 5pm useage.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> Good luck with telling a citizen of Keighley that they are part of Bradford!



I am 70 miles away, I have never visited either place. Therefore, I have every right to dictate where others are from


----------



## MarkF (24 May 2016)

Just me on it at 5pm. Can't see me using it again.


----------



## classic33 (24 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> Just me on it at 5pm. Can't see me using it again.


That good.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> Just me on it at 5pm. Can't see me using it again.


Bradford to Stanningley? Aye, you get the rough end.

I did Seacroft to Thornbury a couple of days ago - and honestly at Thornbury, I took one look down into Bradford, and thought ........ nope.

fwiw
- Seacroft - Killingbeck. OK - some consistency problems. But LCC do have a history of going back and rectifying problems that come up in use;
- Killingbeck - Quarry Hill - too early to say; some really silly bits (the traffic lights at the entrance to Asda - just daft);
- Quarry Hill through Leeds to just before Armley Gyratory - ain't never going to happen, as far as I can see. You're on your own;
- Canal Road (?), through to Greggs Bakery to head over Stanningley Bypass. Too early to say - depends on how well worked out the road markings are, mostly good surface (but a lot oddly third rate). But could well be really good when finally finished. Silly infrastructure at traffic lights by the fire station - would have made so much more sense to be consistent with the other traffic lights along that stretch.
- Stanningley Road - still under construction.
Stanningley - only safe place to ride is the ******* pavement. 

Stanningley to Thornbury - eeh; not great. Inconsistencies galore. Not designed to give (or even hint at) cyclist priority across road junctions. In fact - cyclists reduced to pedestrian status? That's me memory.

Thornbury Junction - a mess. Full stop. End of. And I'm heading home.

So ........... like I say, you got the duff end


----------



## NorthernDave (24 May 2016)

I saw a cyclist on the Inner Ring Road last week (you know, the urban motorway!). From York Rd, towards Armley Gyratory. Straight through the tunnels, no lights, no helmet, on an MTB...
Presumably he thought that was the correct route since there doesn't appear to be a city centre cycle superhighway section?


----------



## classic33 (25 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> I saw a cyclist on the Inner Ring Road last week (you know, the urban motorway!). From York Rd, towards Armley Gyratory. Straight through the tunnels, no lights, no helmet, on an MTB...
> Presumably he thought that was the correct route since there doesn't appear to be a city centre cycle superhighway section?


Ended up on there years ago. Choice of going under a lorry that that decided against turning off at the last minute or going straight on.
Got a police(range rover, with light elevated) escort off at the first junction.

I got on from the opposite, Armley end. I did put the rear lights on though.


----------



## growingvegetables (25 May 2016)




----------



## classic33 (25 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


>


Given the choice, which would you take. Continue or ride under the back wheels of a lorry?
I considered it the safer(easier) option, exit was elevated, and I'd just gone past that. Road layout has changed since then.

Headed out to the Irish Club on the other side of Leeds. Intention was to cut through the city centre.


----------



## growingvegetables (25 May 2016)

Dunno!

But I would have drunk the Irish Centre dry on arrival!


----------



## classic33 (25 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Dunno!
> 
> But I would have drunk the Irish Centre dry on arrival!


Apart from the near miss it wasn't that bad. Range Rover seen headed the opposite way, they saw me. I knew they'd be back. Explanation given, as well as the registration, and then the escort off, with that elevated light and instructions not to overtake them!

I'd tickets to pick up and get back home.


----------



## MarkF (25 May 2016)

I'll probably never use the Leeds side, tbh I was only being nosey, I can get to Leeds centre from my house in Thackley traffic free anyway, along the canal, it's a lovely ride now that the Calverley woods stretch has been re-surfaced.


----------



## marknotgeorge (25 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> Phil, a lot of Bradford taxi drivers are not even licensed by Bradford, they are licensed by Rossendale! Thus removing the local councils right to spot check the cars and drivers. Still, the drivers have lot to lose with few other employment prospects, I don't think the standard of taxi driving is bad.



We've even got the occasional Rossendale cab this far south.


----------



## NorthernDave (25 May 2016)

MarkF said:


> I'll probably never use the Leeds side, tbh I was only being nosey, I can get to Leeds centre from my house in Thackley traffic free anyway, along the canal, it's a lovely ride now that the Calverley woods stretch has been re-surfaced.



This is part of the problem - in the usual "trying to be all things to all people" carry on, it ends up being unsuitable for most.
For the eastern end where I live, the fastest route into Leeds isn't down York Road and I doubt many cyclists would choose to go that way.
There seems to be a misapprehension that the scheme starts / ends at the Barwick Road / Ring Road roundabout, but cycling provision starts beyond the Old Red Lion Pub on York Road. There is (for example) a new off road cycle track along the section of York Road opposite the hand car wash, shared space alongside Pogson Cottages that continues through the underpasses at the Windmill Roundabout, a frankly terrifying route to cross Seacroft Gate / York Road and then another cycle track briefly alongside the Ring Road, that leads onto a very quiet residential road (Hansby Drive?) which leads into more cycle track and onto the scheme at Barwick Road.
Yet if I was cycling from here into Leeds I'd only follow the cycling provision across the Windmill roundabout, then take the direct route to Leeds via South Parkway and Wykebeck Valley Road (or even more directly via Brooklands Ave and on the tarmac route across Fearnville Fields if I was on the hybrid), then up Coldcotes Circus (or Fairway Hill) and straight through Compton and down Stoney Rock into Leeds.
A shorter route, less hilly and significantly less traffic - so why would you go out of your way on the hillier council approved route?


----------



## mjr (27 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Yet if I was cycling from here into Leeds I'd only follow the cycling provision across the Windmill roundabout, then take the direct route to Leeds via South Parkway and Wykebeck Valley Road (or even more directly via Brooklands Ave and on the tarmac route across Fearnville Fields if I was on the hybrid), then up Coldcotes Circus (or Fairway Hill) and straight through Compton and down Stoney Rock into Leeds.
> A shorter route, less hilly and significantly less traffic - so why would you go out of your way on the hillier council approved route?


Because South Parkway looks like a 30mph rolling rat-run with some large roundabouts, Wykebeck Valley Road/Coldcotes Circus/Compton/Stoney Rock seem fairly poorly-maintained minor roads with traffic-calming of the usual sort that encourage motorist-cyclist conflict (pinch points, speed cushions and so on), plus the whole route is rather non-obvious. While the likes of thee and me are OK riding that sort of road, it's not good enough for mass cycling - heck, Street View captures plenty of people along that route - like this guy - who appear to have been scared onto the footways.

Of course, that route could be made good enough (for starters, filter out some motorists, put more 20mph, sign+surface it) and it's not to say that the York Road route is good either, but can you really not understand why people will go out of their way to ride something that they think is designed+signed for cycling?


----------



## classic33 (27 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Because South Parkway looks like a 30mph rolling rat-run with some large roundabouts, Wykebeck Valley Road/Coldcotes Circus/Compton/Stoney Rock seem fairly poorly-maintained minor roads with traffic-calming of the usual sort that encourage motorist-cyclist conflict (pinch points, speed cushions and so on), plus the whole route is rather non-obvious. While the likes of thee and me are OK riding that sort of road, it's not good enough for mass cycling - heck, Street View captures plenty of people along that route - like this guy - who appear to have been scared onto the footways.
> 
> Of course, that route could be made good enough (for starters, filter out some motorists, put more 20mph, sign+surface it) and it's not to say that the York Road route is good either, but can you really not understand why people will go out of their way to ride something that they think is designed+signed for cycling?


Too many use the pavements because they are easier use than the roads. In the same way people are driving/parking on pavements.

When you're walking, where do you go when a bicycle, being ridden at speed, appears on the inside of a queue of people at a bus stop?


----------



## mjr (27 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> When you're walking, where do you go when a bicycle, being ridden at speed, appears on the inside of a queue of people at a bus stop?


Bicycles don't just appear - they get ridden there - but ideally, I stay on the footway and the bicycle passing on the cycle track doesn't bother me, or gives way to me if I'm crossing to join the queue.


----------



## classic33 (27 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Bicycles don't just appear - they get ridden there - but ideally, I stay on the footway and the bicycle passing on the cycle track doesn't bother me, or gives way to me if I'm crossing to join the queue.


Only there's no cycle track there, in the link you provided.


----------



## mjr (27 May 2016)

classic33 said:


> Only there's no cycle track there, in the link you provided.


In post #162? Nor is there any bus stop in that link.


----------



## growingvegetables (27 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> This is part of the problem - in the usual "trying to be all things to all people" carry on, it ends up being unsuitable for most.


Eeeeh - that's a wee bit harsh, surely? It's not like it is really a "council approved route" - it's just a set of improvements to cycling on York Road, some of them good, some of them ... "not so good" (like the lights controlled junctions by Asda ). 

Bits of it will be real handy for me
- from the bottom of South Parkway, if I want a fast ride into the station for example, I go along Wykebeck Valley Rd, up Gipton Approach, and York Road; very slightly longer, less climbing, and (normally) much freer cycling. Riding through the Comptons and Stoney Rock is a lot slower.
- the climb to Seacroft Tesco. Shorter and steeper via South Parkway (and unpleasant just before East Leeds Academy). Or half a mile longer, much gentler climb, and cycling friendly, via the CSH and old York Road (and Aldi ).

Kinda depends where you are, and where you're going?


----------



## growingvegetables (27 May 2016)

mjray said:


> Street View captures plenty of people along that route - like this guy - who appear to have been scared onto the footways.


Ah - I know that spot. Almost certainly not somebody scared off the road, but somebody taking a shortcut to avoid going all the way round the roundabout. (I have never done that. Never. Ever ............. without checking whether i'll be spotted by a Googlecar ).


----------



## NorthernDave (27 May 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Ah - I know that spot. Almost certainly not somebody scared off the road, but somebody taking a shortcut to avoid going all the way round the roundabout. (I have never done that. Never. Ever ............. without checking whether i'll be spotted by a Googlecar ).



I have to agree that is an unnecessarily large roundabout - a throwback to when South Parkway was originally opened as a dual carriageway (to match North Parkway, which ended up as the dual carriageway to nowhere...)


----------



## growingvegetables (27 May 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> .... a throwback to when South Parkway was originally opened as a dual carriageway ....


It was orginally planned to have a tram route running down a huge green space in the middle. 

Even today, the odd and even numbered houses on S Parkway are on either side of the vast green space, with other street names and numbers in between.


----------



## NorthernDave (3 Jun 2016)

Work continues at a snail's pace on York Road, but the completed section at Barwick Road (outside the shops / takeaways) appears to have become the car park it was widely predicted to become.
Yesterday tea-time there were 7 cars parked in it, today there were 8. I've reported it to the council, so we shall see what (if anything) happens - the auto reply email said they'll respond within 10 working days...


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Jun 2016)

Iric, the TROs will be established two weeks before the "formal" opening. Nowt anybody will fo about it at the moment .


----------



## NorthernDave (4 Jun 2016)

Yes, I remember hearing something along those lines - however the signs have been up for a couple of months now. 
Lets be honest - what are the chances of seeing anyone from Parking Services up there? Virtually zero.
Even during the working day (when most of the takeaways are shut), it's unlikely to get anything other than a fleeting occasional visit from one of the enforcement officers who are meant to be down at Cross Gates. 
The council will no doubt claim they don't have the resources, ignoring the fact that dishing a couple of tickets out would make it self funding...


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Jun 2016)

Received a response - apparently Parking Services will issue warnings on vehicles parked on the CSH from 23rd June, with enforcement / tickets issued from 27th June. 

Separately, I've heard on the grapevine that the "official" opening date for the CSH is now 20th June, which I must admit sounds very optimistic given the current state of works...


----------



## classic33 (9 Jun 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Received a response - apparently Parking Services will issue warnings on vehicles parked on the CSH from 23rd June, with enforcement / tickets issued from 27th June.
> 
> Separately, I've heard on the grapevine that the "official" opening date for the CSH is now 20th June, which I must admit sounds very optimistic given the current state of works...


"Official Opening" is just there for those in the council to have their picture taken alongside a section of it. Whilst telling everyone look at what they got done.

Doesn't mean the work is finished.


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> "Official Opening" is just there for those in the council to have their picture taken alongside a section of it. Whilst telling everyone look at what they got done.
> 
> Doesn't mean the work is finished.



Like I say, it's from no more reliable a source than the grapevine, but there is no way whatsoever that they're going to have the amount of work that needs doing on York Road alone done in 10 days even if they were to work 24/7 on the CSH.
I'm really struggling to understand the slow rate of work and particularly the piecemeal attitude towards the construction - we'll start a bit here, then start something else up here, then something else over here, leaving a trail of unfinished work behind them. I can only assume it's because the council are doing the work themselves. The section past Asda is still unfinished, six months after they started it and there is precious little evidence of any meaningful recent work there.

Has anyone seen the appalling and potentially dangerous changes being put in Leeds bound opposite what was the Dog and Gun?
The street scene there was a wide pavement with intermittent painted parking bays (although most of the houses have drives), then a bus/cycle lane and two normal traffic lanes. The (unfinished) scheme from what I could see between all the cones now seems to consist of a narrowed pavement, then the CSH, then a fairly continuous parking bay for residents, then the bus/cycle lane and normal traffic lanes.
Which means anyone cycling in the CSH looks like they are going to be in danger of car doors being opened on them for the full length of this section! Whilst also watching for people pulling off their drives at the same time... Who on earth signed this off?


----------



## classic33 (9 Jun 2016)

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....-superhighway-will-set-cycling-back-1-7916928


----------



## mjr (10 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> "Official Opening" is just there for those in the council to have their picture taken alongside a section of it. Whilst telling everyone look at what they got done.
> 
> Doesn't mean the work is finished.


Volunteers to crash in the background?


----------



## classic33 (14 Jun 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Received a response - apparently Parking Services will issue warnings on vehicles parked on the CSH from 23rd June, with enforcement / tickets issued from 27th June.
> 
> Separately, I've heard on the grapevine that the "official" opening date for the CSH is now 20th June, which I must admit sounds very optimistic given the current state of works...


Bradford Council Parking Enforcement will not be issuing fines to any driver who parks on any cycle lane within Bradford. Warnings only, if somebody gets the details of the vehicle, time and location of any such incident and then passes them onto the council.

The ticketing of vehicles on the Cycle Super Highway will be done from Leeds.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Jun 2016)

Plans being developed to fill the Leeds city centre gap, and connect the Leeds-Seacroft and Leeds-Bradford sections of the superhighway. Could be interesting.


----------



## NorthernDave (19 Jun 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Plans being developed to fill the Leeds city centre gap, and connect the Leeds-Seacroft and Leeds-Bradford sections of the superhighway. Could be interesting.



You're right, it sounds interesting even though it should really have been done with the rest of the CSH scheme.

Possibly ties in with the many press releases about future plans to close City Square to all traffic apart from buses and taxis, although I suspect it might have more to do with the previously revealed artists impressions for Eastgate, the Headrow and Westgate? 
That said, I'm not sure where in the city centre they could fit 2x 3m wide segregated cycle lanes in without huge remodeling and shifting other traffic elsewhere...


----------



## classic33 (20 Jun 2016)

Thought the road down from the old bus station was supposed to be being closed to all traffic, bar cycles?
No longer used as the "car park" will be going.


----------



## MarkF (23 Jun 2016)

My cousin is visiting from Oz, so I took him to Leeds for lunch today, via the cycle lane, saying nothing. Just after Thornbury roundabout, having nearly been taken out by woman in a Range Rover willing to risk killing us rather than delay her arrival at the Co-Op by 2 seconds, he'd had enough and pleaded to ride on the Ring Road as it would be a lot safer!

If you are setting off from Bradford, it's crazy, who wants a mile long uphill slog where you have to keep stopping to press a button and wait to be able to re-join the lane on the other side of the road? You have junctions where there is a green cycle light, so you cross, but an easily missed red light for the second leg of the crossing! 

IMO it's a pile of catmuck, it makes the journey take longer and is far more dangerous.


----------



## atbman (24 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> You mean Church Bank, (City Cathedral)! Church Hill is Baildon, I'm trusting my A-Z on this one.


Oops - misremembered. - confusion with church Hill (poss. Churchhill pub on ...Bank


----------



## NorthernDave (30 Jun 2016)

Well, according to the YEP, the Bradford - Leeds City Centre section is now officially 'open'. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ound-leeds-to-bradford-route-a-ride-1-7991428

Amusingly, the article (actually more of a press release cut and pasted onto the website) states "The remaining Seacroft to Leeds section of the route is due to open next month." 
Does it really? Because this section was due to open last year. Then "March 2016", then "Spring 2016", then (as recently as last week) "June 2016" and now the official opening date is 18th July.
They still have barely started at the Shaftesbury lights, although it looks like they've realised that they have nowhere to put it on the outbound side and have sprayed what looks worryingly like a 1m wide cycle lane onto the existing carriageway through the lights. And given the glacial pace of the works I'll be very surprised if the inbound section between Selby Rd and the Shaftesbury lights is finished in under 3 weeks...
Finally, let's not forget that on the "completed" sections between Leeds and Seacroft many of the junctions _still_ haven't been marked out leaving it a dangerous free for all.


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Jul 2016)

Good to see the YEP actually riding the route.


----------



## NorthernDave (4 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Good to see the YEP actually riding the route.



It's not a bad article, but the cycling journalist makes a school boy error in stating that cyclists must use the cycle path. Putting a blatant error like that in print will only make some believe it is fact.
At least he's been corrected in the reader comments below.

One final point - I doubt many cyclists will agree with his comment that the route from the city centre to Stanningley is "mainly flat"!


----------



## growingvegetables (6 Jul 2016)

"On Saturday 9th July we [Leeds Cycling Campaign] will be joined by representatives of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain including Mark of As Easy As Riding A Bike fame. 

We will be riding along the full length of CS1 (Leeds - Bradford) taking photos, measurements, and generally auditing the route. We will be highlighting the good bits, but also highlighting the bits that need to be altered. This will form the basis of our recommendations for improvements to the route ...." more here


----------



## classic33 (6 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> "On Saturday 9th July we [Leeds Cycling Campaign] will be joined by representatives of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain including Mark of As Easy As Riding A Bike fame.
> 
> We will be riding along the full length of CS1 (Leeds - Bradford) taking photos, measurements, and generally auditing the route. We will be highlighting the good bits, but also highlighting the bits that need to be altered. This will form the basis of our recommendations for improvements to the route ...." more here


Guess there'll be no parking in any section on the day then.


----------



## growingvegetables (7 Jul 2016)

classic33 said:


> Guess there'll be no parking in any section on the day then.




Guess what I'm doing with my head-cam on the few days before?


----------



## NorthernDave (10 Jul 2016)

I had to take the road bike in for fixing today, so used a short section of the CSH today between the Outer Ring Road and Foundry lane..
Now I'm sure that City Connect will tell you that this section "is not finished yet", but most of this section was completed months ago and hasn't seen a workman since. I'm also not trying to compete with the excellent article linked to earlier in the thread where this part of the route has been reviewed.
Please also bear in mind that my pics were taken at 10am(ish) on a Sunday morning - traffic levels on here during the working day are hugely different.

The first thing you notice is that there are no signs to differentiate between the adjacent footpath and the CSH. As a consequence most of the peds I encountered today were walking on the "wrong" bit of tarmac.
Off to a good start with no cars parked on the inbound section at the Barwick Rd shops. I'm still deeply uneasy about where the CSH crosses road junctions as you need to have owl like all round views to be sure that a car turning off the 40mph dual carriageway is going to give way.
Down the hill and you are aware of how narrow the CSH is. There is no room for a faster cyclist to pass a slow one. There are also quite a lot of ironworks, etc still in place, despite claims that they'd be moved:





The handlebars on my road bike show how narrow the CSH is here. Imagine this on a hybrid with flat bars? On the left you have a drop off kerb to the footpath, on the right a strip of grass verge then the dual carriageway.
Inbound you pass a petrol station and tyre centre - where as at other junctions it is at least marked giving cyclist priority there is nothing here. It's unclear why there is such inconsistency.
At the next junction (formerly the Melbourne Roundabout), the inbound side crosses Cross Gates Road using some old cycling insfrastructure (1990s?) from when the junction was previously remodeled. This is optimistically signed as a 'shared space', even though there is barely enough room for a cyclist to pass between the roadside barriers penning you in.
Over this road and the trees are overgrowing the cycle path meaning cyclists have to duck.
I then crossed over York Road to a section where work has yet to start and where frankly it's difficult to imagine where they are going to fit a seperate cycle lane in:




On the far side of the hedges in the mid distance, there is a bus stop, shops and parking spaces - it will be interesting to see how the CSH is shoe-horned in here.
Looking away from Leeds, there is a bit of elderly cycle infrastructure that I can't ever recall seeing a cyclist using, presumably on account of it's general uselessness, given that there is an on road cycle lane up to the lights for anyone heading up the A64?:




This short length of cycle path ends at the lights with no instructions on where to go next. Presumably not off the kerb at the end?

Anyway, bike dropped off, I decided to walk home back up the "outbound" side of the CSH/A64.
Immediately outside Killingbeck Police Station is a handy on ramp arrangement for cyclists coming up Foundry Lane onto the CSH outbound. This is a good piece of cycle friendly planning. It's a shame that almost immediately afterwards there is a traffic light in the cycle lane, and you can see the amount of debris gathering there too:




Round to the recently opened fire station and we have another lot of ambiguity over who has right of way on the access road (there are traffic controls on the 'emergency' lane out of the fire station, as you can probably just see):




The next junction is a rats nest of bits of tarmac going here there and everywhere, again lacking signs or directions as to who goes where. I couldn't really get a photo showing all it's ridiculousness due to the scale of it.
However, just past the junction the layout suggests that cycle path and the footpath have swapped sides, supported by signs indicating the the cycleway is now on the lower section on the left:




But at the next junction, all the markings indicate the opposite, that the cycle path was on the right hand side raised section after all!




Notice the bus stop in the above photo?
When we get there it's unclear where peds are intended to go. The layout suggests they can go to the bus stop, but that it's a dead end for them - the layout suggests (supported by the signs further on) that it's the cycle way only that continues up the hill. Or does the cycle way become a shared space beyond there?




Again, no signs to indicate what is correct which will only lead to confusion. At this point I was passed by a cyclist using the 40mph dual carriageway (as he was entitled to be).
Up to the top of the hill, past the shops with a sign for the cafe in the middle of the CSH and on to what is probably the worst junction on this section:




The CSH spits you out into the mouth of a busy junction, with traffic coming off the 40mph road across you from directly behind your shoulder and across a ghost island, through often queuing traffic waiting to join the main road and back into the CSH (behind the silver car).
There are no markings suggesting who has right of way and this junction has been like this for at least 6 months. Are drivers expected to spot the cycle path sign and anticipate that they should give way to cyclists crossing the mouth of the junction..? This really is an accident waiting to happen.

I really wanted the CSH to be something so much better than what we've been given. The real question is why is it so poor given the huge amount of money that has been spent on it?


----------



## MarkF (10 Jul 2016)

Some bus stops near Bradford have half that distance to cycle in. The worst thing is though, is the constant filtering of cyclists from the cycle path, right into areas where vehicles have priority. It's a stop start dangerous nonsense and it's faster for me to go with the flow of traffic on the road, safer too IMO.


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Jul 2016)

Not sure where to start.

I rode with these guys yesterday. Several points to make.

1. Absolutely fascinating to "listen in" 
- to people who know infrastructure inside out, and upside down;
- to people who had a hand in the decisions and consultations;
- to people who had a handle on the history.

2. The "western" section (Leeds-Bradford) was contracted out; the "eastern" section is being implemented by LCC resources (as and when they don't get callled off to do other jobs, like filling potholes for the Triathlon).

3. The "western" section has a pretty high level of consistency, in things like 
- indicating priorities for the cycle track;
- use of green paint to show priorities;
- creative use of bi-directional cycle routes and efficient use of signals.​4. The "eastern" section, by comparison, is seriously inconconsistent. One wee repetitive example, on the eastern section. When the CSH crosses a road junction, cyclist priority is clear. But when CSH crosses an entrance to a business, hospital, or cemetery (), the kerbstones are laid in such a way as to suggest 4-wheeled-motorised priority.

5. Between Thornbury RAB and Bradford Cathedral, I am very seriously impressed.

6. Between Leeds and Thornbury? There are bits unfinished. There are bits best left alone. And there are ******* nightmares ("Mike's Carpets" junction heading west is murderous. And the Stanningley "shared space" experiment - **** me!).



Bottom line - the eastern section implemented by LCC is far below the standards of the western section. It's almost as if the council work gangs and their immediate supervisors took it upon themselves to decide that the plans were wrong. A damned shame - becaise their incompetence will have to be rectified.


----------



## MarkF (11 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> 5. Between Thornbury RAB and Bradford Cathedral, I am very seriously impressed.



Really? That section is a long linear uphill slog. The last thing you want to do is to stop, press a button and wait to re-join the cycle path, which is now on other side of the road. How many times do you have to do that between the Cathedral and Thornbury? I'll take the road............


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> The last thing you want to do welcome break is to stop, press a button and wait to re-join the cycle path, which is now on other side of the road catch my breath!


Fixed that for my riding!


MarkF said:


> I'll take the road............


And you're very welcome .


----------



## NorthernDave (11 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> Some bus stops near Bradford have half that distance to cycle in. The worst thing is though, is the constant filtering of cyclists from the cycle path, right into areas where vehicles have priority. It's a stop start dangerous nonsense and it's faster for me to go with the flow of traffic on the road, safer too IMO.



There are ridiculously narrow sections around bus stops further down York Rd, but none as far up as the section I rode. That said, they still have to shoehorn something in between Asda and the police station (in both directions)..


----------



## MarkF (12 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> The welcome break is to stop, press a button and catch my breath!



Point taken.  But...........a commuter (me) doesn't want that, it is the last thing he wants, to have to stop, press a "wait" button, wait for traffic to stop, all so that he can cross the road to carry on in the same direction he was already going in! Uphill or downhill, its very annoying and time consuming, I think that you have to do this 5 or 6 times in what? 1.2 miles?

Leisure cyclists are not going to use it anyway, it's a dud.


----------



## growingvegetables (12 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> .... it's a dud.


I'm not going to let you off with that .

1. Nobody's forcing you to stop, push buttons, and wait! Your commute, your call. Use it, use bits, don't use it - no worries. (I will point out that the buttons to push are at traffic lights, where you may well hit a red anyway.)

Fastest way from my front door to ticket machine in Leeds Station - York Road. Before CSH was ever dreamed of, I could do it in just under 20 minutes. This morning? Using CSH/their roadworks () for uphills (when I am slow), and out on the road for the downhills (me mixing in with the traffic, riding at 15, 20, 25mph)? Bang on 18 minutes. No difference in time - but hugely more pleasant on my slow uphills .

2. "Leisure cyclists are not going to use it anyway." Not sure what you mean?

- that nobody in their right mind goes for a scenic, leisure ride from Seacroft to Bradford, via Armley? *TRUE. Oh most definitely true. *But is isn't designed as that - it's just a reasonably practical "spine" that people might use bits of, as suits their needs. And it works as that (pretty well, with caveats; see below).

- or literally, that leisure cyclists won't use it? Sorry, but ...... this weekend or next, anything up to 6 or 7 in the family may take the train to New Pudsey, and take in a leisurely 3.5 mile ride to Bradford Industrial Museum. Brilliant destination - and just SO easy. "We" include everybody from me and son #2 (5-6000 miles pa, battle-hardened road warriors), through to son #1's girlfriend, who only learned to ride a couple of months ago and has done 1 x 10 mile country-lane and bridleway ride; maybe even to ex-partner trying out her trike.

We would not have contemplated such a social ride along the pre-CSH *6-lane, 40mph dual carriageway*!

And from the number of slow riders I saw on Saturday, we won't be the only ones to use little bits of it!

3. With all that, there ARE bits that do not work.

- The Stanningley "shared space" is a nightmare. IMHO, the remodelled junction works pretty well, but the "shared" approaches/exits are a ******* nightmare; one fast, impatient, close pass after another. Not helped at all by the fact that the cyclists are "dumped" without any warning into the main speed-monkeys' traffic lane. Thank the Stanningley NIMBYs for that little disaster.

Hey - but it sure as hell makes one appreciate the leisurely miles one has ridden! Having conversations, spotting interesting buildings and views! WITHOUT having had to focus on the million and one, second-by second calculations, assertions, and safety calls of the road.

- The ring-road junction has not been improved at all; there was little point, given that the whole junction is to be remodelled/rebuilt fairly soon (we are talking "planners' soon" - a rather longer perspective than you or me ).

- And the "Mike's Carpets" junction in Armley is just a disaster. Needs demolition and restarting from scratch. No amount of money poured into it will improve on the installation of the toucans westbound. 

[Unfortunately, they spent money on it. 

This is what it WAS. It is now very significantly MORE dangerous. Unbelievably so. Sorry, I was so ******* shocked by how incredibly badly that painted red strip has been "improved", I didn't take a photo.]​

Hey - but that's something you *can* do something about. Go and see it - and add your complaint to mine (and I suspect many others) before somebody gets killed there. And with respect - a wee bit more useful than writing the whole thing off as "a dud".


----------



## Pete Owens (12 Jul 2016)

I am curious why this thread seems to be going on so long (14 pages spanning over a year). A crap cycle lane is hardly news. From the photos it seems to be entirely typical - no worse or better than thousands of others up and down the country - OK it has featured twice in Facility of the Month, but then it is quite long so there is plenty of opportunity for absurdiy. So why so much discussion about this particular lane?


----------



## MarkF (13 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> I'm not going to let you off with that .
> 
> 1. Nobody's forcing you to stop, push buttons, and wait! Your commute, your call. Use it, use bits, don't use it - no worries. (I will point out that the buttons to push are at traffic lights, where you may well hit a red anyway.)
> 
> ...



Not interested, ridden it more than once, won't again, I'll use the road because it's a dud.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> I am curious why this thread seems to be going on so long (14 pages spanning over a year). A crap cycle lane is hardly news. From the photos it seems to be entirely typical - no worse or better than thousands of others up and down the country - OK it has featured twice in Facility of the Month, but then it is quite long so there is plenty of opportunity for absurdiy. So why so much discussion about this particular lane?


Because two councils pushed the idea that this lane would end cycling on the road between the two cities. Despite the opinions of many out there.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Jul 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> I am curious why this thread seems to be going on so long (14 pages spanning over a year). A crap cycle lane is hardly news. From the photos it seems to be entirely typical - no worse or better than thousands of others up and down the country - OK it has featured twice in Facility of the Month, but then it is quite long so there is plenty of opportunity for absurdiy. So why so much discussion about this particular lane?



In addition to what @classic33 has said, probably because of the huge amount of money that is being spent on it, because parts of it are so horrendously bad that is difficult to believe that anyone who has ever ridden a bike has been allowed any input and because it's more than 6 months past the opening date and there are still sections that haven't even been started yet..?
That's just 3 reasons off the top of my head.

Edit to add one more - that the people behind it have articles in the local media almost every day telling everyone how great it is, despite the above...


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jul 2016)

This is a two-way section:







http://westleedsdispatch.com/cycle-superhighway-safari-mixed-response-social-media/


----------



## Roadrider48 (13 Jul 2016)

I hope the bus stop never gets busy.


----------



## mjr (13 Jul 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> 1. Nobody's forcing you to stop, push buttons, and wait! Your commute, your call. Use it, use bits, don't use it - no worries. (I will point out that the buttons to push are at traffic lights, where you may well hit a red anyway.)


Indeed. Also, unless the design is unusual, the push-button crossing red light will be advisory (red bike+man or just red man) rather than compulsory (red circle or red bike on its own with amber/green aspects below) so you might still get across more quickly sometimes if the crossing has good enough visibility to see if the road is clear - which it ought, to give you a better chance when motorists jump red lights, but bizarrely not all do.

To answer @Pete Owens - I think one reason this one attracts such criticism is that it's worse than most of the Cycle City Ambition projects and it's a very visually-obvious back-to-the-80s kind of substandard rubbish on a large scale. The only larger sibling project was Manchester's and "Velocity" was spread across the whole urban area rather than on one route. West Yorks also called theirs a "cycling superhighway" which invited comparisons with the new NS and EW ones in London which shames them.


----------



## MarkF (13 Jul 2016)

glenn forger said:


> This is a two-way section:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This comment resonates with me:- _"It's exactly the kind of design which has led to deaths and anti-cycleway sentiment here in Germany".
_
As I posted earlier, I took my Australian cousin up it, a full on helmet wearing, hi-viz safety guy and yet, by mile 2 he was begging to ride on the ring road in the traffic.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> As I posted earlier, I took my Australian cousin up it, a full on helmet wearing, hi-viz safety guy and yet, by mile 2 he was begging to ride on the ring road in the traffic.


Tell him its use is compulsory!!


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Jul 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> In addition to what @classic33 has said, probably because of the huge amount of money that is being spent on it, because parts of it are so horrendously bad that is difficult to believe that anyone who has ever ridden a bike has been allowed any input and because it's more than 6 months past the opening date and there are still sections that haven't even been started yet..?
> That's just 3 reasons off the top of my head.
> 
> Edit to add one more - that the people behind it have articles in the local media almost every day telling everyone how great it is, despite the above...



@Pete Owens I've just remembered another couple of points -
About 8 or 9 years ago, there was a scheme on the LCC website, in conjunction with Sustrans (if I remember correctly), to re-open the former railway line from Cross Gates all the way to Wetherby as a cycle route and tie in with the NCN (R66 passes very close to Cross Gates, R655 - I think - is at Wetherby).
This was going to cost massively less per km than the CSH (which is costing around £1million/km, if it comes in on budget, which seems unlikely), but got quietly shelved and I've been unable to find a trace of it since about the time the council started touting plans for an "Outer Outer Ring Road" from Red Hall across to Colton "to support the regeneration of east Leeds".
The other thing, which is a wider societal point, is that LCC have been tantalising the people of east Leeds with promises of a mass transit system since (at least) the early 80's, when plans were first published to install a monorail. Since then we've seen £millions spent on studies, plans, compulsory land purchases and goodness knows what else for various schemes and not one of them has seen the light of day. We did briefly see bendy buses, but they only lasted a few years and are now just a faded memory.

The fact is that LCC has a horrendous track record on pretty much every type of transport project and the CSH seems to sum it all up in one huge omnishambes.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jul 2016)

Off-Topic, The monorail was it supposed to run out York Road as well as parts of the city centre?


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Jul 2016)

classic33 said:


> Off-Topic, The monorail was it supposed to run out York Road as well as parts of the city centre?



The monorail was going to run from the city centre right out to Seacroft (and possibly another route to the south of the city?). It was certainly intended to serve a large percentage of the population that the CSH is now meant to attract onto their bikes, so on that basis I'd say it's relevant background info to question and the subject of transport projects on this side of Leeds.


----------



## classic33 (15 Jul 2016)

That'd have been from the old bus station, which is why it was retained in the city city centre. Leeds library got the plans from the West Yorkshire Transport Executive for this period.

Current bus station is what came second in the 60's, Ignoring the coach park added on in recent years.


----------



## NorthernDave (20 Jul 2016)

Quick update. The current official opening date for the Whinmoor/Seacroft* - Leeds section was *Monday 18th July*.

Unsurprisingly it's still nowhere near finished and there are still significant sections where work still hasn't even started (Shaftesbury junction outbound, the outbound section opposite Seacroft Hospital all the way to the Melbourne roundabout, for example). Where work is being carried out it is at a such a glacial pace it is difficult to establish if anything is actually being done day to day.

* - I say Whinmoor / Seacroft as no-one seems clear where it starts. The official signs indicates that the route starts on Barwick Rd at the junction with the A6120, but the route actually continues up Stocks Rd, Hansby Drive, across Seacroft Gate, through the subways under the Windmill roundabout and along York Road to (at least) around the Baildon Drive junction...


----------



## classic33 (20 Jul 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Quick update. The current official opening date for the Whinmoor/Seacroft* - Leeds section was *Monday 18th July*.
> 
> Unsurprisingly it's still nowhere near finished and there are still significant sections where work still hasn't even started (Shaftesbury junction outbound, the outbound section opposite Seacroft Hospital all the way to the Melbourne roundabout, for example). Where work is being carried out it is at a such a glacial pace it is difficult to establish if anything is actually being done day to day.
> 
> * - I say Whinmoor / Seacroft as no-one seems clear where it starts. The official signs indicates that the route starts on Barwick Rd at the junction with the A6120, but the route actually continues up Stocks Rd, Hansby Drive, across Seacroft Gate, through the subways under the Windmill roundabout and along York Road to (at least) around the Baildon Drive junction...


Last part sounds about right, no-one seeming to know where it starts.


----------



## classic33 (22 Jul 2016)

User46386 said:


> Has anybody elce on that stretch had problems with buses pulling out? I find that as soon as I try to overtake they pull out, they need to wait until the cyclist has gone back into the cycle lane. Gets right on my nerves.
> I was considering gettting off the train the stop early from the coast where I went yesterday to avoid Leeds city centre but it was Selby and I'm not sure of the way back.


That's nothing new with regards the buses. Just they've still to operate to the timetable, with no account of the work ongoing being considered. Timetable worked out by someone who never has to use the buses in my opinion.

They still should check though, before pulling out. You've very little visual indication to go on once alongside one.


----------



## PMarkey (23 Jul 2016)

well due to my youngest going back into the LGI I will be enjoying the delights of the cycling super highway for the next 6 weeks/months  it will be interesting to see how it works out when used on a regular basis .

Paul


----------



## MarkF (24 Jul 2016)

They will never clear this problem up on the Bradford side, never, showing a cycle path to drivers in inner Bradford is like showing a pipe to a ferret.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14637646.Cars_blocking_new___29m_cycle_route/


----------



## classic33 (24 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> They will never clear this problem up on the Bradford side, never, showing a cycle path to drivers in inner Bradford is like showing a pipe to a ferret.
> 
> http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14637646.Cars_blocking_new___29m_cycle_route/


Ticketing is down to Leeds Council along the entire length, at present.

When did you last see a Leeds Traffic Parking Officer in Bradford?


----------



## NorthernDave (24 Jul 2016)

MarkF said:


> They will never clear this problem up on the Bradford side, never, showing a cycle path to drivers in inner Bradford is like showing a pipe to a ferret.
> 
> http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14637646.Cars_blocking_new___29m_cycle_route/



Blimey, there are some angry posters on the T&A website aren't there?
Although good to read tucked away in that article is that the scheme on the east of Leeds is now scheduled to be completed in August (which, if true, will only make it 8 months late...)


----------



## MarkF (24 Jul 2016)

classic33 said:


> Ticketing is down to Leeds Council along the entire length, at present.
> 
> When did you last see a Leeds Traffic Parking Officer in Bradford?



I didn't know that. But a parking officer in Bradford is a bloody thankless task. Occasionally one turns up near BRI when I am going to the bakery for my lunch, if I catch him, I get a can of pop, sit on a wall and watch it all kick off, it's one of the worlds worst jobs.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Jul 2016)

That taxi problem was covered in a morning telly programme last week, for instance Birmingham have a 120 question taxi driver test and a local knowledge exam but other councils dont so you get a small town where summat like half the population are registered as cabbies. It makes a mockery. They did interview one cabbie who said hes only trying to save money..


----------



## NorthernDave (3 Aug 2016)

Well here we are in August and there is still no sign of the eastern section of the CSH being finished (or indeed started, in places...). It remains difficult to see what is actually being done in the sections that are apparently being worked on.

Although there were adverts on local radio over the weekend stating that it is fully open and kindly reminding drivers that they had to give way to cyclists where indicated by the road markings.

Oh, and it seems that the two halves of the scheme are now numbered CS1 (Leeds - Bradford) and CS2 (Leeds - somewhere in the east of Leeds). Which is nice.


----------



## Pete Owens (6 Aug 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Well here we are in August and there is still no sign of the eastern section of the CSH being finished (or indeed started, in places...).


Given how bad it is when they do implement things then surely we should welcome the bits that are not started - and hope that the budget runs out before they can do any more harm.


----------



## classic33 (7 Aug 2016)

Pete Owens said:


> Given how bad it is when they do implement things then surely we should welcome the bits that are not started - and hope that the budget runs out before they can do any more harm.


One way of looking at it. 

However work has been started in various places along the route. If work were to stop, it'd leave a mess behind it.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Aug 2016)

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpre...sit-to-the-leeds-bradford-cycle-superhighway/



> what was particularly frustrating for me wasn’t actually the low quality. It was the inconsistency. Some sections have been built and designed reasonably well. But other sections – dealing with identical problems – have been bodged, and bodged badly, which left me wondering why a more consistent level of quality couldn’t have been achieved.











> The photograph shows that, alongside a six-lane road for motor traffic, not only will users have to swerve around traffic light posts right in the middle of the cycleway, they will then have to deal with a ‘door zone’ (indicated by the pale surfacing) created by _new_ parking bays installed on the road – parking bays that didn’t exist before, and that, if in use, will actually block in people parking legitimately off the carriageway. In the context of such an enormous road this is very thin gruel indeed, especially when we consider that on the opposite side we have to put up with just a shared use footway.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2016)

glenn forger said:


> https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpre...sit-to-the-leeds-bradford-cycle-superhighway/


Rather than "superhighway", this should be known as the "I-can't-believe-it's-not-criminally-lethal highway"


----------



## glenn forger (12 Aug 2016)

But if you get doored it is not a driving offence. You can be killed by being doored and the driver walks free. So cycle lanes are painted slap bang in the "Kill a Cyclist With Zero Consequences" zone. Classy.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2016)

To be clear, I feel it's the council responsible which is being criminally lethal there at many levels - including the designers who should have refused to produce plans for such deadly obstacles, the executive who should have refused to approve such plans, the contractors who should have refused to build such plans - not those who are enticed into killing or being killed by it.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2016)

Lighter areas in the photo are tactile paving.

You can see another area up at the crossing.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Aug 2016)

glenn forger said:


> But if you get doored it is not a driving offence. You can be killed by being doored and the driver walks free. So cycle lanes are painted slap bang in the "Kill a Cyclist With Zero Consequences" zone. Classy.





mjray said:


> To be clear, I feel it's the council responsible which is being criminally lethal there at many levels - including the designers who should have refused to produce plans for such deadly obstacles, the executive who should have refused to approve such plans, the contractors who should have refused to build such plans - not those who are enticed into killing or being killed by it.



If you think those 'door zones' are bad, wait until you see what's being installed on the east side of Leeds between the Shaftesbury junction and Selby Rd...
Firstly, apologies for the image quality - they're from a cheap dashcam that was never designed for this type of use.
Inbound, A64 York Rd (40mph dual carriageway with a 24-hr bus / cycle / taxi lane), between Selby Rd and the Shaftesbury junction. This section has been worked on for (at least) two months now and shows no sign of completion. However, the new alignment is in place and clear to see.





From the left - houses with drives, footpath, CSH, small dividing kerb, car parking bays, bus lane, main dual carriageway.
So cars coming off a drive will be initially unsighted to peds and cyclists until partially emerged. Cyclists will be vulnerable to cars coming off these drives, but also to being "doored" by anyone stopping in the parking bays. Car passengers will almost certainly be facing away from any approaching cyclists, making the situation worse. Car passengers will disembark straight into the CSH, presenting a further danger to themselves and cyclists, which will be exacerbated if putting children into the car.
In addition to this, there is every possibility that access to existing drives will be blocked by people parking in the parking bay. Equally anyone wanting to access their drive will have to enter the bus lane, potentially turn through a narrow gap between parked vehicles and cross the CSH at right angles, before immediately crossing the footpath. If these vehicles have to stop, they will protrude into the bus lane and having driven forwards onto the drive (the most likely option given the layout), they will have to subsequently exit the drive in reverse, compounding an already unsatisfactory situation.
Is this really the best solution - for anyone?
More images further along the same section:







In the image above, note how the CSH diverts around the site of a bus stop / shelter (not yet completed) and how close it gets to the wall / driveway. Peds will be expected to cross the CSH into the bus shelter area and then cross back on the other side.

Inbound, A64 York Rd (40mph dual carriageway - buses are in a guided busway in the centre of the road at this section), between the Shaftesbury junction and Selby Rd. Like the images above, this section has been "worked on" for months, with little obvious signs of any ongoing progress.




Similar outlay to above - from left, houses with drives, footpath, CSH, parking bays, 40mph dual carriageway. largely the same problems as previously, but now vehicles will be maneuvering from a 40mph running lane. Cyclists still face the perils of being doored from vehicles in the parking bays as well as looking behind them for vehicles accessing drives from the A64. Vehicle passengers are again likely to be facing away from approaching cyclists, making a poor situation even worse.




Note how close the driveway dropped kerbs are - surely this will lead to direct and frequent conflicts with vehicles in the parking bays?




Note the sharp curve before the CSH crosses the side road - the red tarmac of the previous cycle lane can still be see in the throat of the side road.
There is no sign of any cycling provision on the far side of the junction yet.




Slightly further down the hill. Residents here have traditionally parked on the wide footpath, although much of this has now been taken up by the CSH.
However, despite the welcome lack of parking bays here, cyclists will still face the perils of vehicles accessing / leaving the 40mph dual carriageway at a 90 degree angle to access these homes. Remember vehicles heading onto the parking area / drives will be turning off a fast moving A road, directly across the CSH from behind any cyclists




Note the layout around the pedestrian crossing (where peds cross back from the central guided busway), along with more dropped kerb / driveway access.
You may notice the bus stop just past the crossing - see below




This is the bus stop - the CSH appears to just stop. Presumably this will become a 'shared space', although once the bus shelter has been put in space would appear very limited.
But why is there a bus stop there if buses are using a guided busway in the centre of the road? That's because only two First services (40 and 56) use the bus way - all other services (Arriva, Yorkshire Coastliner, City Zap, Harrogate and District and all other First buses) use the normal carriageway so bus stops have been maintained for them on the normal dual carriageway - this is the sort of transport logic the authorities apply in Leeds.

So, that's a few pics of a frankly terribly thought out and poorly implemented section of the scheme. It's not all like this, some parts are pretty close to being ideal (poor surfaces being excepted), but sections like those above tarnish the whole scheme and are quite possibly enough to put people off using it. I know I'd be extremely wary about using the sections I've shown above.

Oh and just for fun, here's one more pic on the outbound carriageway nearer Leeds (opposite Go Outdoors, if you know the area).




The CSH is in a shared space here, between the angled retaining wall and the bus shelter - yes, it really squeezes through that gap where all the bus passengers will stand.


----------



## PMarkey (13 Aug 2016)

I've given up on the CSH for my daily ride to and from the LGI , it's just too stressful and to slow at least on the way into Leeds, it's mostly flat or down hill from Thornbury roundabout and I have no trouble hitting 25-30 mph on fixed so I use the road but this means I get no end of grief from people at bus stops and pedestrians for not using the cycle track plus numerous punishment passes and on the last occasion I used the CSH verbal abuse and aggressive weaving from a Peugeot 206 all for having the temerity to use the road and not the cycle route  I've started using the route via Tong to and from home it's a little on the lumpy side especially on fixed but it is way more scenic and a lot more enjoyable .

Paul


----------



## classic33 (14 Aug 2016)

PMarkey said:


> I've given up on the CSH for my daily ride to and from the LGI , it's just too stressful and to slow at least on the way into Leeds, it's mostly flat or down hill from Thornbury roundabout and I have no trouble hitting 25-30 mph on fixed so I use the road but this means I get no end of grief from people at bus stops and pedestrians for not using the cycle track plus numerous punishment passes and on the last occasion I used the CSH verbal abuse and aggressive weaving from a Peugeot 206 all for having the temerity to use the road and not the cycle route  I've started using the route via Tong to and from home it's a little on the lumpy side especially on fixed but it is way more scenic and a lot more enjoyable .
> 
> Paul


Over 18mph and you should be on the road anyway.


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Aug 2016)

classic33 said:


> Over 18mph and you should be on the road anyway.



For virtually all of the downhill bits, you could freewheel and seriously exceed 18mph (Crossgates Lane to Melbourne Roundabout, Killingbeck Cemetery to Wykebeck Valley Rd, Torre Rd flyover to Leeds City Centre). 
The issue is the lack of understanding that cyclists are under no obligation to use the thing - even the YEP seems under the impression that cyclists MUST use the CSH.


----------



## mjr (14 Aug 2016)

classic33 said:


> Over 18mph and you should be on the road anyway.


Don't start that shoot again. We shot down the government when they tried to retcon crap infrastructure by publishing a "code of conduct" that said that.

Cycle tracks should be built for cycling speeds, so _at least_ 20mph in most places. It sounds like the Leeds CSHOOT blatantly isn't and cyclists should be concentrating on pointing out the government's incompetence, not grumbling about each other.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Aug 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> even the YEP seems under the impression that cyclists MUST use the CSH.



That chap seemed to backtrack a bit, he said "Oh no, I just meant cyclists seemed unaware of the cycle lane!" It's possible they were fully aware of the cycle lane and chose not to use it cos it's a load of old squit.


----------



## keithmac (14 Aug 2016)

Yorks not much better, most of our cycle lanes are still on the road and blocked by bus-stops!.

I'll have to take a picture of Hamilton Drive roundabout, honestly surprised no-one's been knocked off a cycle down there!.

They put a cycle lane full length of Beckfield Lane, riding across everyones driveways.., it just puts cyclists in conflict with car drivers for no good reason. The best place there is to be on the road unfortunately then you have all the comments about not using the lane!.

The people who design these routes should cycle them as well.

The joys of cycling!.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Aug 2016)

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ay-falls-two-months-behind-schedule-1-8078877


----------



## NorthernDave (22 Aug 2016)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ay-falls-two-months-behind-schedule-1-8078877



Sadly another example of how a once fine local paper is now happy to simply print whatever it is fed by the council press office.
The scheme is not two months late - it was originally due to open in December last year making it (to date) 8 months late and there is no realistic possibility of it being finished in the next month or two such is the amount of work outstanding.


----------



## NorthernDave (1 Sep 2016)

Update - 1st September 2016: Now 9 months overdue and still nowhere near finished, some sections still haven't been started.

(The official completion date was December 2015)


----------



## NorthernDave (1 Oct 2016)

Update - 1st *October* 2016: Now 10 months overdue and still nowhere near finished, some sections still haven't been started.
(The official completion date was December 2015)


----------



## DCLane (1 Oct 2016)

I rode this on Friday - haven't reported the incident to CityConnect as I honestly think they can't be bothered - but a wagon used the cycle lane and the road, catching me as I was on it. This was on Stanningley Road: https://www.strava.com/activities/729788222

It's only a matter of time before someone's killed on this thing. I've ridden it 4 times since it's opened and on each one there's been at least one instance of cars / pedestrians / blockages which was dangerous on the Stanningley Road section from the interchange to the weird roundabout.


----------



## PMarkey (1 Oct 2016)

I gave up weeks a go and now use Tong Street , Tong Lane , Tong Road and through Armley to get to the General Infirmary when my youngest is being treated as an inpatient .

Paul


----------



## NorthernDave (2 Oct 2016)

It also looks like parking enforcement has been abandoned on the eastern section already.
On Friday, between the Outer Ring Road and Cross Gates Lane there were half a dozen cars / vans parked on the CSH mainly outside the shops, with a couple more half on / half off the CSH on the opposite side of York Road by the cafe.

And the section from Foundry Lane to Moresdale Lane (past the new fire station) suffers from dropped kerbs on the vehicular access that aren't dropped enough leaving proud edges and large pools of standing water after even a small amount of rain that takes days to clear - that is going to be a near permanent obstacle throughout the winter then. 

There is still the lack of markings showing priorities leaving some junctions in an incredibly dangerous state (reported again this week).

The above were pretty much the first sections finished (word used advisedly) on the eastern section and are indicative of the issues that beset the whole scheme.


----------



## NorthernDave (4 Oct 2016)

++Stop Press++
The CSH might be 10 months overdue and with no completion date in sight, but all is not lost - City Connect have started hanging large banners from lamp posts on the route telling us all how great it is!

I don't know who is doing their PR but they really need to have a word with themselves.


----------



## Pete Owens (4 Oct 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> ++Stop Press++
> The CSH might be 10 months overdue and with no completion date in sight, but all is not lost - City Connect have started hanging large banners from lamp posts on the route telling us all how great it is!
> 
> I don't know who is doing their PR but they really need to have a word with themselves.


Perhaps the period of the delay could be used to persuade them to spend the budget that is earmarked for completing this thing be redirected to removing the rubbish hat they have already subjected us to.


----------



## mjr (4 Oct 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> City Connect have started hanging large banners from lamp posts on the route telling us all how great it is!


Time for some subvertising?



Pete Owens said:


> Perhaps the period of the delay could be used to persuade them to spend the budget that is earmarked for completing this thing be redirected to removing the rubbish hat they have already subjected us to.


Redirect the PR budget into fixing the worst hazards, at least!


----------



## NorthernDave (4 Oct 2016)

Another update - its all happening now - they've started painting the tarmac green where it goes around bus stops!


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Oct 2016)

There is a whisper going round that the Eastern section of the CSH will be "opened" on Monday 17th October, even though CityConnect admit that there will still be work to do (possibly the understatement of the year...). 

There are some interesting 'facts' listed in the FAQ section of the website too: http://cyclecityconnect.co.uk/faq/
I particularly like the following ones:
*Can children’s scooters and mobility scooters use the route too? *
Yes, children’s scooters and mobility scooters are able to use the route – but in the same manner as anyone using it on a bicycle, please be aware of and be respectful to anyone else using the route.

*How will the superhighway be cleaned and maintained?*
Also the route has been carefully designed to minimise the amount of cleaning required. For the most part it will drain into the road so that debris does not collect within the cycle track.

*Where does it go?*
The Cycle Superhighway will extend along a 14 mile route between east Leeds and Bradford. It will connect the new housing sites out in east Leeds, to the A64 York Road within the Leeds Ring Road. It will then use the A64 before entering Leeds City Centre. The city centre route is currently being finalised


----------



## Norreka (9 Oct 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> *How will the superhighway be cleaned and maintained?*
> Also the route has been carefully designed to minimise the amount of cleaning required. For the most part it will drain into the road so that debris does not collect within the cycle track.



In that case I'd hate to think what would justify maximum cleaning! I tend to find I'm playing a constant game of "how quickly can you spot the broken glass".


----------



## MarkF (12 Oct 2016)

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....cycling_commuters_in_Bradford_Leeds_corridor/

An 800% increase based on my experiences on it would mean another 8 cyclists! How much was it again? Can't wait for the comments.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (12 Oct 2016)

Posted it on F.B. I know a few anti car cycle safety campaigners.


----------



## mjr (12 Oct 2016)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Posted it on F.B. I know a few ""anti car"" cycle safety campaigners.


Really, or are they as fictional as the "segregationists" that sometimes get mentioned on this site?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (12 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Really, or are they as fictional as the "segregationists" that sometimes get mentioned on this site?


Lets put it this way, they get out on the road to demonstrate in numbers about safety and over use of fossil fuels.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Oct 2016)

Anyone used the outbound side of the CSH near Adsa at Killingbeck?
The section just before Killingbeck Drive is already thick with fallen leaves, which are wet and slippery as it's in the shade virtually all day.

Reported it as needing sweeping to the council yesterday, let's see how long it takes for it to get done. We can treat it as a likely indicator of ongoing upkeep..


----------



## Pete Owens (14 Oct 2016)

MarkF said:


> http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....cycling_commuters_in_Bradford_Leeds_corridor/
> 
> An 800% increase based on my experiences on it would mean another 8 cyclists! How much was it again? Can't wait for the comments.


Do they actually believe their own hype - the superhighway simply couldn't handle 9000 cycles/day.


----------



## mjr (14 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Why not? If you look at a 12 hour period of use in any day, that's 750 bikes an hour - or 12-13 bikes a minute. I don't think 12 cycles a minutes on a nine mile cycleway is going to be overwhelming...


Indeed. It's a misleading number, a slight of hand. I'd bet that the official peak flow through any toucan crossing on the route won't exceed 6/minute each/way (assuming typical tight turns on/off and 6-second green crossing light in a 76-second cycle), but that's not what they're quoting... in fact, I bet they've not even modelled the whole flow, else some of the bottlenecks would be seen as obvious problems.


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Oct 2016)

Also don't forget that there are sections where overtaking a slower moving cyclist / pedestrian or mobility scooter* user is going to be virtually impossible without causing a conflict.


* - the FAQ on the city connect website states that the CSH is also for the use of these, despite them being allowed on the footpath already.


----------



## classic33 (14 Oct 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Also don't forget that there are sections where overtaking a slower moving cyclist / pedestrian or* mobility scooter** user is going to be virtually impossible without causing a conflict.
> 
> *
> * - the FAQ on the city connect website states that the CSH is also for the use of these, despite them being allowed on the footpath already.*


There's a genuine fear that on the approach to the hospital, that users may soon be forced to use it and not the pavement.

Which for some would be off-putting.


----------



## Pete Owens (15 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Why not? If you look at a 12 hour period of use in any day, that's 750 bikes an hour - or 12-13 bikes a minute. I don't think 12 cycles a minutes on a nine mile cycleway is going to be overwhelming...


Well that would be the case if you assumed that cycle trips were evenly spread throughut the day, that a cycle trip typically lasted for 1 minute and that it was just as likely to occur on any part of the super highway.

In the real world, typically each rush hour will acount for about 20% of the daily volume. Now, not all those journies will traverse the whole route so if we assume a 4.5m mile journey then about half of those cyclists would be expected to pass any given point on the cycleway (more on busier stretches). So 9000 trips/day would mean over 30 cyclists per minute passing busy points of the route.

They may have justified the cost based on that volume of traffic, but they certainly haven't designed the route to be able to remotely accomodate it.


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Oct 2016)

Looking at the ops original photo it makes you wonder how much was spent on the little walls and islands seperating the bikes from the road. Dont the council realise a tin of paint will do?

There is also an issue here that I am taking up with my local council in Denmark about a new cycle path. Its not a complaint, just an observation. Why do the planners like to put unnecessary little curves and bends in cycle paths? In my experience bikes like to run in straight lines. I understand curves look nice in a cycle path. But not at 5am when its pitch black.


----------



## classic33 (15 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Looking at the ops original photo it makes you wonder how much was spent on the little walls and islands seperating the bikes from the road. Dont the council realise a tin of paint will do?
> 
> There is also an issue here that I am taking up with my local council in Denmark about a new cycle path. Its not a complaint, just an observation. Why do the planners like to put unnecessary little curves and bends in cycle paths? In my experience bikes like to run in straight lines. I understand curves look nice in a cycle path. But not at 5am when its pitch black.


It's called following the road, not all of which are straight.

But that's why we have steering.


----------



## MarkF (15 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> There's a genuine fear that on the approach to the hospital, that users may soon be forced to use it and not the pavement.
> 
> Which for some would be off-putting.



It would save time if the cycle path led directly to A&E.


----------



## classic33 (15 Oct 2016)

MarkF said:


> It would save time if the cycle path led directly to A&E.


It'd have a bit further to go i Bradford, from Little Germany!

In Leeds, the mobility scooter issue is that users may be forced off the footpaths, because of this.


----------



## NorthernDave (15 Oct 2016)

classic33 said:


> In Leeds, the mobility scooter issue is that users may be forced off the footpaths, because of this.



This is a big concern, after finding it quietly tucked away in the FAQ on the City Connect website that the CSH is for mobility scooter use as well. 
I certainly don't recall any discussion about this previously and for the overwhelming majority of the route east of Leeds a mobility scooter is going to pretty much fill the cycleway, making overtaking one a near impossibility without hopping onto the footpath or back onto the road. 
And we're still assuming that users of the CSH will all be heading in the same direction on the respective sides of York Rd, as there still appears to be no signage to clarify this.


----------



## NorthernDave (17 Oct 2016)

Well, today is the big day, Monday 17th October - they day when the inbound side of the East Leeds section is supposed to be finished.
http://cyclecityconnect.co.uk/news/a64-update-for-october/ (I'm happy to be corrected, but isn't the photo used to illustrate the article about the eastern side of the route actually near the former Stanningley fire station on the western side?)

It certainly didn't look that way when I passed this morning...and despite the claims in the article there still seems to be no cycling provision through the Shaftesbury Junction...


----------



## Pete Owens (17 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Err no...
> 
> 30 cyclists per minute isn't a huge number. Some of the busiest junctions in Cambridge (e.g. the A1307 / A603 junction) will see twice that per minute in rush hour and that is dwarfed by what some London junctions see.


I can see how this large multilane road junction:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1...4!1stYPa0QQgDr1MJVzCtS2I-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
could easily handle 30 cycles per minute. In a way that this c***y farciltity:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2015.htm
couldn't.


> The number of cyclists using it isn't going to be the key issue.


Obviously not, since the claim that such numbers are going to materialise is an absurd fantasy.The key issue is that its rubbish.


----------



## NorthernDave (24 Oct 2016)

Time for my weekly update:
*24th October *(one week after the much delayed "offical" opening of the route from Leeds- Seacroft) - *still not finished*!
And unsurprisingly there is still lots to do, but to keep us entertained in the meantime, I've got a few more pics of what you get for £2 million per mile.
Apologies again for the quality.

Here we have the outbound route between the Torre Rd flyover and Harehills Lane.
As you can see, the cycleway has been highlighted across the junction in green and despite road markings elsewhere on the route showing the vehicles on the road must give way to cyclists on the CSH, here we see a Give Way sign for the cyclist, who has to perform a tricky 270 degree appraisal of the traffic before proceeding. Bear in mind that any traffic turning in here is coming off a 40mph dual carriageway.





Same junction, but look - the road markings for traffic exiting the office park say that they must give way to cyclists on the CSH. While this is undoubtedly for the best, it is at odds with the other side of the junction and is bound to lead to confusion, or worse. Also note how the old "non-super" cycle lane is still very much in place on the carriageway.





Not a great pic next, but it does highlight a good point. Notice how the CSH is sandwiched between the footpath and the newly installed parking bay, putting the cyclist (just visible next to the red car) right in the door gap. What you can't see so well here due to the quality of the pic is the appalling quality of the workmanship here.





Next pic is the CSH approaching Killingbeck Drive, the retail park where Asda is. Again, not a great pic, but you can make out the depth of fallen leaves already collected in the CSH by the way they obscure the inner kerb. This was reported last week, but remains uncleared.
Again, note the "non-super" cycle lane still in place on the carriageway.





This is a good one, just past Killingbeck Cemetery at the entrance to Lyme Chase, we have this confusing mess of road markings.
Who gives way to who here? Remember any vehicles are exiting / entering a 40mph dual carriageway here.




Anyway, there is a gap from the bus shelter you can see above right past the petrol station and shops right up to the traffic lights just past Burger King, where there is nothing. No CSH, in fact no cycling provision at all. No cycle lane, no shared path, just a 40mph dual carriageway that opens out to 4 lanes as it passes through the traffic lights (at the lights there is an ASL though, so that's alright). And oddly a 1990's off road cycle path that is about 50m long and leads to a toucan crossing, where after crossing two sets of lights you can join the restarted CSH.

And finally, you might remember that I've mentioned the dangerous junction of the A64 (Barwick Rd) and York Rd at Seacroft?




The good news is that they've finally painted it green and although the white lines have yet to go in, you can see (just) where they have chalked in where they are about to put in Give Way markings for cyclists. This is probably wise - it goes against most of the other priorities nearby, but would you really cycle straight over this junction and assume that a car driver coming off the 40mph dual carriageway would give way to you? I certainly wouldn't.
The faux-by-four is in the standard position here for traffic waiting to pull onto the main road, which will inevitably lead to conflict with any cyclists.

Clearly there is still a lot of work to do, but I can't see how they're going to salvage this now. Parts of it are excellent, but there is so much that is just wrong that it undoes any positives.


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2016)

At a four way give way (which is what they seem to have created a few times there), you give way to who was there first, else to the right, else to the bravest...well, that's one theory!


----------



## NorthernDave (16 Nov 2016)

Update: 16th November - still not finished...and certain bits which are now sorted are shocking. The shared space footway (painted white line) from Lyme Chase up to the BP filling station being the latest example, especially how it crosses the petrol station access road and dumps cyclists back in the live carriageway with just a bit of paint on the dual carriageway to protect them 

But I've noticed that York Road is being resurfaced all the way from Highways flats (just below the Asda at Killingbeck) right up to the Shaftesbury junction. I wonder if the cost of this much needed highways maintenance is being included in the CSH costs? 
It might go some way to explaining the £29m (or £1m/km) cost of the scheme if it is?


----------



## classic33 (18 Nov 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> Update: 16th November - still not finished...and certain bits which are now sorted are shocking. The shared space footway (painted white line) from Lyme Chase up to the BP filling station being the latest example, especially how it crosses the petrol station access road and dumps cyclists back in the live carriageway with just a bit of paint on the dual carriageway to protect them
> 
> But I've noticed that York Road is being resurfaced all the way from Highways flats (just below the Asda at Killingbeck) right up to the Shaftesbury junction. I wonder if the cost of this much needed highways maintenance is being included in the CSH costs?
> It might go some way to explaining the £29m (or £1m/km) cost of the scheme if it is?


Seen a few nervous riders on the York Road section. Drivers just ignoring it.


----------



## MarkF (23 Nov 2016)

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....ts_out_after_crash_on___39_superhighway__39_/


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2016)

MarkF said:


> http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co....ts_out_after_crash_on___39_superhighway__39_/


It always amazes me how many motorists seem to think their cars sweep the roads and Roadsweepers don't exist or are cosmetic ornaments or something. One reason why a cycle track should never be narrower than a Roadsweeper, never make a zero radius corner and never have unopenable access restrictions on both ends is that maintenance vehicles need to get onto it, else it probably won't be cleaned properly, won't have vegetation cut properly and won't be repaired properly because they'll have to do it all without vehicles and large machinery, which is more difficult and more expensive. It's scandalous that most councils still don't seem to accept this.


----------



## NorthernDave (14 Mar 2017)

Well, it's only been "finished" for a few months and already the CSH is closed both ways at Killingbeck.

Inbound it's been closed for weeks as part of council highways 'improvements' which seem to consist of a new access road into the hospital site (presumably for the new housing development) and now on the outbound side as well where the bus lane is also closed and the kerb stones have been removed.

So, just as the weather starts to improve and user numbers will pick up, cyclists are being pushed back onto the dual carriageway...


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Mar 2017)

Just "Wow!". The folks that brought us the "Cycling Super Highway", not content with bad planning, and worse construction, have managed to find another unholy way to piss me off. Well and truly.

WTAF. 
City Connect is working with the university to design (an) app ... to encourage cyclists to learn about road safety while riding along the segregated route between Bradford and Leeds
A message for the idiots at City Connect. I DO NOT NEED ENCOURAGEMENT TO LEARN ABOUT ROAD SAFETY; IT'S MY LIFE ON 12KG OF FLIMSY METAL! If anybody needs such encouragement, it's the City Connect designers themselves; or the moronic Stanningley residents who think sprinkling the CSH with broken glass will restore their house values (yup, they really are that stupid - the CSH "has seriously devalued our houses"!); or the numpties who think the CSH is there - for them to park on. And as for the dangerously selfish ******s who think the cycle lane is an advanced stop line for their fiddle-panzers ..... 

[edited - not what I typed! Aye, it's hard to maintain any level of righteous zealous anger when my word becomes "fiddle-panzers" ]


----------



## NorthernDave (24 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Just "Wow!". The folks that brought us the "Cycling Super Highway", not content with bad planning, and worse construction, have managed to find another unholy way to piss me off. Well and truly.
> 
> WTAF.
> City Connect is working with the university to design (an) app ... to encourage cyclists to learn about road safety while riding along the segregated route between Bradford and Leeds
> ...



It does seem incredibly patronising - and this from a pair of local authorities who are constantly crying about how skint they are...which is presumably why there is virtually zero enforcement of the clearly signposted parking regs.

But, can I suggest something that might annoy you even more?
The whole outbound section of the CSH past Asda at Killingbeck (one of the last bits to be finished last year, and which was apparently delayed due to them finding a gas main beneath where it was going) has been ripped up.
Yep, less than a year old and a whole stretch of it is gone - ironically to allow them to extend the gas main across York Road into the new development that is going up behind Seacroft Hospital.
Given the cost of the whole scheme, that must be getting on for £500,000 worth of cycleway that's now been closed and dug up?

Oh and of course on the opposite side of York Road, the bike lane is closed for them to put the access road to the development in.
You really couldn't make it up!


----------



## classic33 (24 Mar 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> It does seem incredibly patronising - and this from a pair of local authorities who are constantly crying about how skint they are...which is presumably why there is virtually zero enforcement of the clearly signposted parking regs.
> 
> But, can I suggest something that might annoy you even more?
> The whole outbound section of the CSH past Asda at Killingbeck (one of the last bits to be finished last year, and which was apparently delayed due to them finding a gas main beneath where it was going) has been ripped up.
> ...


NGN/British Gas are expecting the work at Seacroft to be completed by the end of next year, 2018.


----------



## NorthernDave (24 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> NGN/British Gas are expecting the work at Seacroft to be completed by the end of next year, 2018.



I knew it was work on the gas main, but I didn't realise that they're dragging it out for nearly two years!
Lets hope the CSH is back in place/use before then - and reinstated to a high standard, which is something that rarely follows after works like this. Given that the development there has been in the offing for years, and it was the gas main that reportedly delayed the CSH getting finished there, you have to question why they put it in to simply rip it out again months later?
Surely the sensible thing would have been to continue to have bikes sharing the existing and very wide bus lane until after the gas works were done and then do the CSH works..?


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Mar 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> But, can I suggest something that might annoy you even more?
> The whole outbound section of the CSH past Asda at Killingbeck ....


Ooooh - I know about all that crap. And the bit west of the Melbourne roundabout - the "this is difficult - ah fark it - forget it - throw the cyclists out into the traffic on one of the nastiest roundabouts in Leeds".

That's pretty much what boiled my **** - that *I* need to "learn about road safety while riding a bike". Incompetent *******s. Worse - incompetent *******s with funding to be incompetent *******s.


----------



## classic33 (24 Mar 2017)

As far as I'm aware it's the sale of the hospital site that's delayed things. That was going to be closed two years ago.

Gas work passed onto a sub-contractor, by the contractor. You'll see a fair few minor gas repairs this year in that area. And if the road surface doesn't match expectations(the road either side of the work), let them know. They're obliged by law to reinstate the road surface as it was before work began. Major problem is that they are using maps/plans that were drawn up in most cases in the '70's. Updating them as new pipes are laid only.

You have this as well, in that area. Inbound has started.
*Inbound*
16 Jan - 31 Aug 2017
A64 York Road, Burmantofts,
Somerville Green to Seacroft Hospital Entrance

*Outbound*
A64 York Road, Burmantofts, 
Killingbeck Drive - Watson Road
1 Apr 2017 - 31 Jan 2018


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Sep 2017)

Time for an update.

Due to an unexpected diversion of todays ride, I've now cycles the entire outbound section of CS1 (as the CSH is now known to the East of Leeds city centre) and can offer the following critique...

As local cyclist knows, the CSH / CS1 and CS2 dump you on either side of the city centre and then leave you to make your own way across to the other section.
Today I rode down New York Street, York Street and the life in your hands experience that is the 6-lane wide Marsh Lane intersection, where to the best of my knowledge there is no cycling infrastructure at all for cyclists heading east.
The only way I could see to get onto CS1 was to kerb hop through a pelican crossing as there appears to be no access from the carriageway onto the cycleway.
This gives you quite a tight radius turn onto the CSH proper and off we go up the hill.
At the first bus stop the CSH takes a narrowed slalom around it and continues to climb
Just before the next bus stop there is an obvious but unaddressed potential for conflict with peds coming out of the housing estate, but it's the bus stop itself that is the big concern here. Simply the shared space is too narrow and you're entirely dependent on peds at the bus stop playing the game and letting you through. If they stand even a foot or two too far back you've got nowhere to go.
Thankfully it's only a very short section and then the CSH opens out a bit, onto what the signs suggest is purely a cycleway (although I've seen plenty of people walking on it). it's just as well it opens out though as there is quite a bit of overhanging foliage encroaching on your path.
Past the pet shop and to the top of the hill, before the descent down to the Torre Road junction, where it all goes horribly wrong.
Firstly priorities are confused at the roundabout with no clear direction as to who should give way to who, then just past the Ford dealer the cycleway simply ends with a no cycling sign.
What you have to do is use _two_ pelican crossings (the first a ridiculously tight turn from the CSH) to cross to the opposite side of the road, where a shared space takes you to another pelican crossing (more very tight turns) - except none of this is clear and there are no signs to direct you.
Once over it's along past the little retail park where peds want to cross the CSH to get to the bus stop and along a nice sensible bit of segregated cycleway, before being plunged back onto the carriageway on a painted cycle lane through the Shaftesbury lights and back onto a narrow bit of CSH, then a shared space at a pelican crossing where peds will be stood waiting to cross, then more CSH squeezed between the footpath and a parking bay, putting you right into the door zone.
The CSH section around Gipton Approach is another complicated, twisting stop start wiggle through at least 4 sets of crossing lights, so I just though _sod that_ and rejoined the road for this bit.

Back on the CSH after the junction, more tight radius curves crossing the next couple of roads and then the section up to Asda at Killingbeck which is one of the best bits. Fairly flat, actually wide enough for cyclists to pass each other (most of the CSH isn't wide enough for overtakes), but the final part of this section is under trees and there is a lot of debris in it - leaves, twigs, small branches, fruit, etc - making it a bit slippery under wheel.
Another 3 sets of crossing lights to negotiate at the entrance to Asda and then the CSH climbs past the store.
Today there was an oil spill running down the CSH, fortunately easily visible due to the rain, from a crashed vehicle on the roadway which was awaiting recovery. A half hearted attempt had been made to address this with a small amount of sand but this had been overwhelmed and with the wet weather it was spreading dangerously (I reported it as soon as I got home).
Across Oak Tree Lane (2 more crossing lights), then a narrow shared space, another bus top to negotiate and past the cemetery and more shared space by the garage before being dumped back onto the road on a painted cycle lane.

At the former Melbourne roundabout the CSH officially carries on alongside York Road, but I was headed for Cross Gates so needed to get across - but there is no apparent way to get across the 4 lanes of York Road onto Cross Gates Road, so I ended up using the pelican crossing, with tactile surfaces for the visually impaired which were very slippery in the wet under bike tyres.
This dumps you on a piece of vintage 1990's cycling infrastructure which runs for about 100 yards and then just stops. Is the path a shared space from here, or should I get off and push? There are no signs to tell you so I just carried on, but really?

At the next crossing I crossed and took the painted cycle lane on the road, avoiding the several parked cars.
However the cycle lane simply runs out well short of the roundabout and again, there are no directions or provisions for cyclists onto the notorious and busy Cross Gates roundabout so you're on your own until a painted cycle lane re-appears again three-quarters of the way round it.

So in summary, parts are good, but too much of it is terrible.
There are far too many sections that are only really wide enough for one bike, so no overtaking / passing.
More worrying though are the number of conflict points with pedestrians, which are apparently resolved by slapping a bit of green paint on the tarmac.
There is the poor maintenance (lack of clearing under trees?) and perhaps worse are the number of tortuous multiple crossings where cyclists have to stop frequently to request permission to proceed. And all those tight curves - why? You're frequently checked back to below walking speed and on a couple I felt the need to actually stop to position the bike as the turns were simply too tight.
And there are the difficult bits, where rather than come up with a solution they seem to have simply not bothered...and the inconsistency in priorities at junctions.

Having now ridden the eastern section, my honest opinion is that it was designed by someone who either doesn't cycle, or doesn't have to use it.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Sep 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> Today I rode down New York Street, York Street and the life in your hands experience that is the 6-lane wide Marsh Lane intersection, where to the best of my knowledge there is no cycling infrastructure at all for cyclists heading east.


Try down Kirkgate, past the Duck and Drake, under the bridge, cross to the pavement in front of St Peters (I believe it's shared-use); across the middle of the roundabout, and just past Coop Funeral, take the (pedestrian ) crossing over to the other side, and it's signed cycle route thru to CS1. 

A tad longer - but it avoids that VILE traffic lights at St Peter St (?) - that looooong, looooooooong space where the timing of the lights doesn't allow for cyclists to clear the junction.



NorthernDave said:


> At the first bus stop the CSH takes a narrowed slalom around it and continues to climb
> Just before the next bus stop there is an obvious but unaddressed potential for conflict with peds coming out of the housing estate, but it's the bus stop itself that is the big concern here.


The biggest danger perhaps is that those bus stops are so rarely used? At least at the well-used stops, pedestrians are usually pretty good, and getting used to the layout (I *exclude* the bus stop at Romart Stores - the people there make sheep look like Einstein ).



NorthernDave said:


> Past the pet shop and to the top of the hill, before the descent down to the Torre Road junction, where it all goes horribly wrong ...


... when it would have been so much easier just to share the buslane over the flyover. 



NorthernDave said:


> Once over it's along past the little retail park where peds want to cross the CSH to get to the bus stop ...


OI! That's the Romart stop! They're all mad there!



NorthernDave said:


> ... then the section up to Asda at Killingbeck which is one of the best bits.


Yup!



NorthernDave said:


> Across Oak Tree Lane (2 more crossing lights), then a narrow shared space, another bus top to negotiate and past the cemetery and more shared space by the garage ...


... and stop there!

For Cross Gates, at the garage cross over to the other side of York Road. Depending on where your're going, either through by the Blood Transfusion place, Maryfields, and Pooles to Cross Gates station; or along York Road to the lights and cross to the other side of Cross Gates Rd. 

I'm pretty sure the decision would have been ... remodelling the Melbourne roundabout ALONE to accommodate safe, convenient facilities for cycling would absorb the whole of the budget, and a wee bit more. Yup - it's that bad. It's been "nipped and tucked" so many times to "smooth vehicle flow" that, I'm guessing, the whole ****ing thing needs rethought, ripped up, and rebuilt from scratch.

And you missed a long stretch where the CSH actually works pretty well .



NorthernDave said:


> And there are the difficult bits, where rather than come up with a solution they seem to have simply not bothered...


... or are waiting to do the full Monty; do the whole junction reconstruction at once. Like just below Seacroft Hospital for the new housing development? 

There's a couple of other places like that - the ring road rab between Stanningley and Bradford (which is supposed to be in the pipeline), and the Mike's Carpets rab in Armley .



NorthernDave said:


> ... and the inconsistency in priorities at junctions.






NorthernDave said:


> Having now ridden the eastern section, my honest opinion is that it was designed by ....


... two different teams? One had the bit east of Melbourne RAB , and the other ... the rest .


----------



## NorthernDave (9 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Try down Kirkgate, past the Duck and Drake, under the bridge, cross to the pavement in front of St Peters (I believe it's shared-use); across the middle of the roundabout, and just past Coop Funeral, take the (pedestrian ) crossing over to the other side, and it's signed cycle route thru to CS1.
> 
> A tad longer - but it avoids that VILE traffic lights at St Peter St (?) - that looooong, looooooooong space where the timing of the lights doesn't allow for cyclists to clear the junction.
> 
> ...



I missed out the section from the Melbourne RAB up to Seacroft as I've ridden that bit loads and for most of it it work really well - the junction just after the fire station is a bit convuluted and the one near Aldi needs you to have your wits about you, but it's generally good.

The real confusion on that part is where it ends. The segregated cycleway stops at the Ring Road and to the uninitiated it seems like it ends there, but there are cycle signs on the local roads running parallel (Stocks Rd, Hansby Drive), a new bit of shared path up to the Windmill RAB, more cycle signs through the underpasses and a painted cycle lane (outbound) or shared paths (inbound) on the next section of the A64.


----------



## growingvegetables (9 Sep 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> The real confusion on that part is where it ends. The segregated cycleway stops at the Ring Road and to the uninitiated it seems like it ends there, but there are cycle signs on the local roads running parallel (Stocks Rd, Hansby Drive), a new bit of shared path up to the Windmill RAB, more cycle signs through the underpasses and a painted cycle lane (outbound) or shared paths (inbound) on the next section of the A64.


Oh sh!t - I know. That bit leaves me ROFLMAO.

Like *all* cyclists *REALLY, REALLY, REALLY* want to do, is get onto the single carriageway section of the A64 from Seacroft thru to the A1(M)! "Hey - that's where cars want to go! Are cyclists different?" Duuuuuuh!


It's really not a hard set of three questions to ask of a bunch of people on bikes - where are you going, why, and how will you get there? NOBODY in their right minds cycles that section of the A64! EVER! There are far pleasanter (and above all, safer!) routes between Leeds and York.


----------



## classic33 (10 Sep 2017)

Seacroft Hospital will be part of the housing development, not next to it.

There's road closures all around it, by all the utility companies, to allow supply to meet demand.


----------



## classic33 (12 Sep 2017)

Marsh Lane isn't finished yet. Completion date is the 20th April 2018
Works Reference Number:GP072111222333


----------



## classic33 (12 Sep 2017)

If you stay with taxi drivers, which is what I pointed out.

Edited to add:
Again, a year later the post is questioned. Odd.

*From Moderators:*
There may well be mainly asian taxi drivers in the places mentioned. However the relevant point is that they are taxi drivers, their race is immaterial.
These two posts have been left in, the remainder of the argument about racism has been deleted.
*Any further racist comments on this thread will result in thread bans. 

This applies to everyone, not just Classic.

If you think a post is racist, report it, do not start another argument on a cycle-lane thread.*


----------



## NorthernDave (2 Mar 2018)

On the way to work on Wednesday morning, the CSH was white over with snow on both sides of York Road - however, on coming home I was pleasantly surprised to see it had been gritted / cleared all the way from Leeds city centre up to the Melbourne roundabout, unlike the adjacent footpath, and it's been maintained since.
Admittedly it is a narrow section in the centre of the CSH and it is only wide enough for one bike with no overtaking unless you wanted to risk the snow and ice, but cleared it was. Oh, and obviously avoid the peds who were walking on the cleared cycle route rather than the uncleared footpath... 

Now al the council need to do is sort out the many obstructions (including a portaloo right in the middle of the CSH opposite Seacroft hospital that's been there for a couple of weeks now, the works / signs blocking it by the Shaftesbury junction, the streaming water running down out of the hand car wash opposite the White Horse that turns to ice as it crosses the CSH, etc)


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2018)

Seems as though the work at Seacroft Hospital is to rectify work already done.


----------



## NorthernDave (6 Jan 2019)

Just an update on the outer reaches of the CSH...

At the back end of last summer, the A64 York Road was resurfaced between the outer Ring Road and just before the Killingbeck RAB.

To my untrained eye, the quality of this work is poor - the road surface feels coarse and rough in a car and even now months later there are still lots of chippings about. This is not the only road to have had this quality of work carried out on it in the same period*

However I didn't realise how bad it was until yesterday (I hardly ever ride this way).
There are still an excessive amount of sharp, loose chippings on the road - so many in fact the the adjacent CSH is strewn with them in several places to the point where it's borderline dangerous in places.

Here's a few pics:

















It's even worse further up the road near Aldi but I didn't take any pics there.

I've reported this to the council and will update with their response, but this hasn't got like this over night, but it's clearly unacceptable and raises serious questions about maintenance and when either the road or the CSH were last swept or inspected?

* - the other roads I know of are Stanks Drive, Shadwell Lane and Wetherby Road (Bramham), which have also been reported.


----------



## tom73 (6 Jan 2019)

Look’s like classic tar spraying. Our street was like that for years a few side roads around here still are. The tar never seams to go off and it’s endless chippings , wet tar and pulling bits of road off the dog. Lost count of the stone chips our car had from the passing high speed clowns from down the street.


----------



## confusedcyclist (7 Jan 2019)

Yes it's the councils way of cutting costs. Instead of proper resurfacing, you get this shite.


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Jan 2019)

I promised an update, so here it is:

A job has been raised to sweep the CSH free of loose chippings but despite it clearly being dangerous it has a completion date in ten days...

The cases I've logged to look at the road surfaces are all still pending.


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> I promised an update, so here it is:
> 
> A job has been raised to sweep the CSH free of loose chippings but despite it clearly being dangerous it has a completion date in ten days...
> 
> The cases I've logged to look at the road surfaces are all still pending.


Anywhere near recent works?


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Jan 2019)

classic33 said:


> Anywhere near recent works?



The adjacent section of road was resurfaced at the back end of last summer, but nothing more recent than that - it seems indicative of the standard of that work that there are still so many loose chippings about


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2019)

I can report it to the company who did the work. If it's as a result of the recent work around the hospital.

It's worth pointing out to the council the contractors have a legal obligation to re-instate to the quality of the surrounding area.

Contractor fails, the council should re-instate to standard and pass the cost incurred onto the contractor.


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Jan 2019)

classic33 said:


> I can report it to the company who did the work. If it's as a result of the recent work around the hospital.
> 
> It's worth pointing out to the council the contractors have a legal obligation to re-instate to the quality of the surrounding area.
> 
> Contractor fails, the council should re-instate to standard and pass the cost incurred onto the contractor.



It's a bit further up than the hospital - I'm fairly sure that this work (like the other roads I've mentioned) was carried out by the council's own Highways Department.


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2019)

NorthernDave said:


> It's a bit further up than the hospital - I'm fairly sure that this work (like the other roads I've mentioned) was carried out by the council's own Highways Department.


Sub-contractor has since gone bust.


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2019)

As a sidenote, it's 4,731 double steps(left foot to left foot) from Seacroft hospital main entrance to Leeds City Station.


----------



## classic33 (12 Jan 2019)

The O2 mast being put in place as you near the hospital. The company behind the work don't even know they've work ongoing by them.

They've closed a section of footpath closed off that isn't covered by the permit, putting them in breach of the permit for the works.

From there upto the roundabout, outbound, the surface is down to the gas supply. Under the pavements on either side. Which is going to be dug up to repair damage.

Had trouble with a private hire driver, who was bound for the licencing department. Ended up following him in, to register a complaint. I'm not flavour of the day in that building/department.

Went out on one side, came back the other. I'd feel safer on the actual road than on that thing. A kamikase on an electric folder decided to take to the pavement, forcing a pedestrian to step onto the CSH. 

Northern Gas Networks reckon the work currently being done, should take two weeks. Provided there's no problems.


----------



## classic33 (12 Jan 2019)

@NorthernDave

The O2 mast being put in place as you near the hospital. The company behind the work don't even know they've work ongoing by them. They're unable to trace it via the permit number, the contact number is wrong. It's for their reception, not those dealing with the actual works, which has been subcontracted out to a subcontractor!!

They've closed a section of footpath closed off that isn't covered by the permit, putting them in breach of the permit for the works.

From there upto the roundabout, outbound, the surface is down to the gas supply. Under the pavements on either side. Which is going to be dug up to repair damage.

Had trouble with a private hire driver, who was bound for the licencing department. Ended up following him in, to register a complaint. I'm not flavour of the day in that building/department.

Went out on one side, came back the other. I'd feel safer on the actual road than on that thing. A kamikase on an electric folder decided to take to the pavement, forcing a pedestrian to step onto the CSH. 

Northern Gas Networks reckon the work currently being done, should take two weeks. Provided there's no problems.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Jan 2019)

Good news in that the CSH has been swept from Killingbeck up to the Outer Ring Road - although there are still plenty of chippings on the main carriageway so we'll see how that goes.

Have you reported the permit breach @classic33 ?


----------



## classic33 (12 Jan 2019)

Not yet as no-one was certain which department it should go to, highways or planning.


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2019)

classic33 said:


> Not yet as no-one was certain which department it should go to, highways or planning.


Street Works Officer should be a named post. Around here, it's in highways dept.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> Street Works Officer should be a named post. Around here, it's in highways dept.


Never!!

It's a breach of a planning application which means it's the planning department that I need. But being on the highway means it's highways I need. But the work is actually being done on private land adjoining the footpath(footway), making it the contractor I should be speaking to, not the council.

Getting the runaround is nowt new. I'm waiting on O2, or Telefonica as they're named on the permit, returning the call tomorrow.


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Feb 2020)

Cyclist down on the CSH today, on the section opposite the old Hilton fire station:
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-crash-york-road-traffic-17707453

Not clear, but it looks like the cyclist has either been knocked over by someone trying to exit (or enter) their drive across the CSH, or possibly been footed from a car in the parking bay that squeezes right up to the CSH.

This is a very poor section where parking bays, the CSH and a footpath have all been squeezed into what feels like far too small a space, leading to obvious conflicts.


----------

