Marlpit Lane, Pontefract. An opportunity to make things better for cyclists squandered

May 20^th 2004

The following photographs typify the success that Pontefract and the world’s cyclists are having with Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.

They come from less than a one mile section of a road called Baghill Lane or Marlpit Lane, all a supposedly contiguous part of the West Yorkshire 'Cycleway'.

$Pontefract (West), West Yorkshire, UK$

Map: Pontefract (West), West Yorkshire

Baghill Bridge

Picture 1 shows Baghill Bridge, which had been shut to motor traffic for six months, while it was strengthened. As you can see, cyclists now have to give way at the lights, despite there being ample room to let them through.

Build Outs

Picture 2 shows build outs into the road. Cyclists, once again, have to give way to oncoming traffic, and are extreme danger from traffic flowing the same way as they are forced to swerve in and out seven times in the space of 500 metres. This was bought to the attention of Newton Bar several years ago. The fact that any body apart from the most docile moron would actually allow cyclists a straight path is endorsed by the fact that build outs in, for instance, Airedale estate, allow cyclists to proceed unhindered.

Pictures 3 and 4 indicate that the West Yorkshire Cycleway is open for business in both directions.

Pictures 5 and 6 show that the route is completely closed for four months. Criticisms and questions include:

No forewarning is given
No alternative routes are signposted
A five kilometre detour is entailed to travel one kilometre
The road could have been remade at the same time as the Railway bridge, instead of effectively shutting off the road for an entire year.
The road was perfectly adequate for car and bike and it was fine for anybody who was satisfied travelling at 30 mph.
How much does it cost to shut and rebuild such a road over 4 months.
No benefit will accrue to cyclists, no net benefit will accrue to car drivers.

I would be interested to hear from anybody who can tell me anything credible which WMDC have done for cyclists in Pontefract. The sad thing is that I only get letters telling me I’m going about things the wrong way. Could somebody please explain what makes the images above the right way?

Here is a comprehensive collection of what has been achieved in Pontefract to achieve the National Cycling Strategy targets:

dick

Marlpit Lane: 02

June 8^th 2004

WMDC’s responses and my replies.

The first letter is from Peter Hemming and has a point by point response. The second is from Andrew Spittlehouse and has a more broad response (I really have got better things to do with my own time than argue with people who get paid to deny that they collectively provide a sub-standard service)

WMDC email Response
Subject: Cycling - in Pontefract
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:01:44 +0100
From: "Hemming, Peter"
To: steve_jm_kidd@yahoo.co.uk
CC: "Spittlehouse, Andrew" , "Kerr, Andy" , "Hall, Jonathan" , "Anderson, Bob" , "Bishop, Clare" CBishop@wakefield.gov.uk
Steve,

You wrote an email which Andrew Spittlehouse received. I am replying to that email.
You raised three issues: I raised about ten actually, to repeat

1. Baghill Bridge
2. Build Outs
3. No forewarning of road closure is given
4. No alternative routes are signposted
5. A five kilometre detour is entailed to travel one kilometre
6. The road could have been remade at the same time as the Railway bridge, instead of effectively shutting off the road for an entire year.
7. The road was perfectly adequate for car and bike and it was fine for anybody who was satisfied travelling at 30 mph.
8. How much does it cost to shut and rebuild such a road over 4 months.
9. No benefit will accrue to cyclists, no net benefit will accrue to car drivers.
10. I would be interested to hear from anybody who can tell me anything credible which WMDC have done for cyclists in Pontefract
Baghill Bridge – While having sympathy with your suggestion, What suggestion? I never made any suggestion about Baghill Bridge, I just wrote “Picture 1 shows Baghill Bridge, which had been shut to motor traffic for six months, while it was strengthened. As you can see, cyclists now have to give way at the lights, despite there being ample room to let them through.”
I am concerned about safety. Just safety?? Well how about banning cars from the road? – I really had hoped you would have broader social objectives.
Car drivers would not expect a cyclist to approach them when they have seen a green light. Pointless statement
There is not enough room to put dedicated cycle lanes for cyclists on both sides of the road. So hang on a minute. Five years ago it was broad enough for motor vehicles going both ways and now er…
Anyway it is so nice to know that you consider 1 meter is two narrow for cycles, that wipes practically all your cycle routes off the map. I take it we can look forward to seeing this done?
The existing situation is the safest we can achieve… What earthly evidence can you provide to back up this ridiculous statement?
though I am aware that cyclists are not averse to ignoring red lights… Do you blame them
and the lights have been there for some years now Yep. It’s been crap for ages! First sensible thing you’ve said
Baghill Lane traffic calming – this was one of our earliest traffic calming schemes, and as you observe we have included cycling facilities in more recent schemes. We will include an upgrade of the Baghill Lane scheme in the programme for this year if at all possible. Excuse me – could you please tell us all what “If at all possible” means
You indicate that you have told us about this before – I am sorry if this is the case. If you were sorry you would get something done.
Marlpit Lane – you will be aware that this widening of Marlpit Lane has been made necessary with the upgrade of the A1(M). A new 6m single carriage way has been built to take the extra traffic from the closure of Spital Gap Lane to vehicular traffic. Necessary?? In terms of its Cost Benefit Analysis best estimates of the A1 ‘upgrade’ yield slightly more than 3 to 1. Dedicated cycle routes yield more than eight to one in multiple scenarios. If you are going to use ‘necessary’ re. social and economic benefits start doing what is more necessary. I would suggest that the whole question of increasing mobility for motor cars is a moot point.
A new 2m bridleway in rolled stone is also being built. Both of these are by the company working for the Highways Agency. Bridleway? What has this got to do with cyclists who want to get from A to B quickly, cleanly and safely?
This route should be re-opened in the next few weeks. I’m sorry, just what is “A few weeks”?
This temporary road closure will have been advertised in the press Pointless – How about putting a caveat on your shitty West Yorkshire cycle route map saying “Oh and don’t forget to scan Local Library’s back catalogue of the Pontefract and Castleford Express”
and I hope that the new route will be passable by 2 cars along its whole length now and still be appropriate for cyclists. Well so do I
The bridleway should also help cyclists. Evidence from the Hemsworth By-Pass, Lin Pac, Whitwood, Normanton by Pass etc etc would suggest this is unlikely to any significant degree
On the broader issue of trying to get facilities for cyclists upgraded and for cyclists to be taken seriously, Impossible I know
labelling us as ‘docile morons’ I wrote “The fact that any body apart from the most docile moron would actually allow cyclists a straight path is endorsed by the fact that build-outs in, for instance, Airedale estate, allow cyclists to proceed unhindered." I wish I had written "any body with the intellect equal to or less than a common or garden docile moron"
does not help your cause in creating positive relationships with engineers. My cause is not to create “positive relationships with engineers”, especially ones who have made my town a more dangerous and unpleasant place to live. My cause is to bring about the greatest social good, and I understand that this can be achieved through transport, specifically Walking and cycling provision. If you really think that ‘positive relationships’ should come before the benefit of your constituency I feel so sorry for you.
While accepting that those who currently cycle can be frustrated that things do not happen as quickly as they’d like, it is not true that nothing happens; Paul Stevenson has been to the most recent Cycling Forum to talk about the programme that we have for this year. Remarkable that this should be your proudest boast - that someone has actually talked about cycling. Wow!
There is a programme of work for cycling improvements. Resources do not allow us to do all you’d like – all at once. So when will my children be able to cycle to school in conditions of relative safety that can be found all over continental Europe? At this rate never. In Pontefract, on Baghill Lane we have gone backwards.
I hope that this goes some way to explaining why things are the way they are It confirms, as I keep pointing out – Going nowhere, not very quickly
Best wishes

Peter

Peter Hemming
Travel Awareness Manager
Newton Bar, Wakefield
tele: 01924 306001
fax 01924 306022
email: phemming@wakefield.gov.uk
Peter Hemming, you are a good bloke and I feel sorry that you have been assigned to try to cover for incompetence within your department. You probably have to work harder than any of them.
I get tired of repeating this:
“who can tell me anything credible which
WMDC have done for cyclists in Pontefract?"

WMDC email	Response
Subject: Cycling - in Pontefract Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:01:44 +0100 From: "Hemming, Peter" To: steve_jm_kidd@yahoo.co.uk CC: "Spittlehouse, Andrew" , "Kerr, Andy" , "Hall, Jonathan" , "Anderson, Bob" , "Bishop, Clare" CBishop@wakefield.gov.uk Steve, You wrote an email which Andrew Spittlehouse received. I am replying to that email.
You raised three issues:	I raised about ten actually, to repeat 1. Baghill Bridge 2. Build Outs 3. No forewarning of road closure is given 4. No alternative routes are signposted 5. A five kilometre detour is entailed to travel one kilometre 6. The road could have been remade at the same time as the Railway bridge, instead of effectively shutting off the road for an entire year. 7. The road was perfectly adequate for car and bike and it was fine for anybody who was satisfied travelling at 30 mph. 8. How much does it cost to shut and rebuild such a road over 4 months. 9. No benefit will accrue to cyclists, no net benefit will accrue to car drivers. 10. I would be interested to hear from anybody who can tell me anything credible which WMDC have done for cyclists in Pontefract
Baghill Bridge – While having sympathy with your suggestion,	What suggestion? I never made any suggestion about Baghill Bridge, I just wrote “Picture 1 shows Baghill Bridge, which had been shut to motor traffic for six months, while it was strengthened. As you can see, cyclists now have to give way at the lights, despite there being ample room to let them through.”
I am concerned about safety.	Just safety?? Well how about banning cars from the road? – I really had hoped you would have broader social objectives.
Car drivers would not expect a cyclist to approach them when they have seen a green light.	Pointless statement
There is not enough room to put dedicated cycle lanes for cyclists on both sides of the road.	So hang on a minute. Five years ago it was broad enough for motor vehicles going both ways and now er… Anyway it is so nice to know that you consider 1 meter is two narrow for cycles, that wipes practically all your cycle routes off the map. I take it we can look forward to seeing this done?
The existing situation is the safest we can achieve…	What earthly evidence can you provide to back up this ridiculous statement?
though I am aware that cyclists are not averse to ignoring red lights…	Do you blame them
and the lights have been there for some years now	Yep. It’s been crap for ages! First sensible thing you’ve said
Baghill Lane traffic calming – this was one of our earliest traffic calming schemes, and as you observe we have included cycling facilities in more recent schemes. We will include an upgrade of the Baghill Lane scheme in the programme for this year if at all possible.	Excuse me – could you please tell us all what “If at all possible” means
You indicate that you have told us about this before – I am sorry if this is the case.	If you were sorry you would get something done.
Marlpit Lane – you will be aware that this widening of Marlpit Lane has been made necessary with the upgrade of the A1(M). A new 6m single carriage way has been built to take the extra traffic from the closure of Spital Gap Lane to vehicular traffic.	Necessary?? In terms of its Cost Benefit Analysis best estimates of the A1 ‘upgrade’ yield slightly more than 3 to 1. Dedicated cycle routes yield more than eight to one in multiple scenarios. If you are going to use ‘necessary’ re. social and economic benefits start doing what is more necessary. I would suggest that the whole question of increasing mobility for motor cars is a moot point.
A new 2m bridleway in rolled stone is also being built. Both of these are by the company working for the Highways Agency.	Bridleway? What has this got to do with cyclists who want to get from A to B quickly, cleanly and safely?
This route should be re-opened in the next few weeks.	I’m sorry, just what is “A few weeks”?
This temporary road closure will have been advertised in the press	Pointless – How about putting a caveat on your shitty West Yorkshire cycle route map saying “Oh and don’t forget to scan Local Library’s back catalogue of the Pontefract and Castleford Express”
and I hope that the new route will be passable by 2 cars along its whole length now and still be appropriate for cyclists.	Well so do I
The bridleway should also help cyclists.	Evidence from the Hemsworth By-Pass, Lin Pac, Whitwood, Normanton by Pass etc etc would suggest this is unlikely to any significant degree
On the broader issue of trying to get facilities for cyclists upgraded and for cyclists to be taken seriously,	Impossible I know
labelling us as ‘docile morons’	I wrote “The fact that any body apart from the most docile moron would actually allow cyclists a straight path is endorsed by the fact that build-outs in, for instance, Airedale estate, allow cyclists to proceed unhindered." I wish I had written "any body with the intellect equal to or less than a common or garden docile moron"
does not help your cause in creating positive relationships with engineers.	My cause is not to create “positive relationships with engineers”, especially ones who have made my town a more dangerous and unpleasant place to live. My cause is to bring about the greatest social good, and I understand that this can be achieved through transport, specifically Walking and cycling provision. If you really think that ‘positive relationships’ should come before the benefit of your constituency I feel so sorry for you.
While accepting that those who currently cycle can be frustrated that things do not happen as quickly as they’d like, it is not true that nothing happens; Paul Stevenson has been to the most recent Cycling Forum to talk about the programme that we have for this year.	Remarkable that this should be your proudest boast - that someone has actually talked about cycling. Wow!
There is a programme of work for cycling improvements. Resources do not allow us to do all you’d like – all at once.	So when will my children be able to cycle to school in conditions of relative safety that can be found all over continental Europe? At this rate never. In Pontefract, on Baghill Lane we have gone backwards.
I hope that this goes some way to explaining why things are the way they are	It confirms, as I keep pointing out – Going nowhere, not very quickly
Best wishes Peter Peter Hemming Travel Awareness Manager Newton Bar, Wakefield tele: 01924 306001 fax 01924 306022 email: phemming@wakefield.gov.uk	Peter Hemming, you are a good bloke and I feel sorry that you have been assigned to try to cover for incompetence within your department. You probably have to work harder than any of them. I get tired of repeating this: “who can tell me anything credible which WMDC have done for cyclists in Pontefract?"

Letter #2

Subject: RE: Cycling - in Pontefract
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:36:28 +0100
From: "Spittlehouse, Andrew"
CC: "Kerr, Andy" , "Hall, Jonathan" , "Anderson, Bob" , "Bishop, Clare" , "Hemming, Peter" , "Burns-Williamson, Mark (Cllr)"

Steve

further to the message recently responded to by Peter Hemming (Travel Awareness Manager), I would like to add a few comments re transport policy.

As you may be aware I am the Acting Team Leader for the Transport Strategy team is based in the Spatial Policy Unit within the Housing and Regeneration Service of WMDC. The team is responsible for the Local Transport Plan (LTP), which is the bidding document for funds from Government, and the Annual Progress Report which reports progress against key indicators. We are also responsible for the formulation of transport policy. Implementation of schemes using capital money is the responsibility of the engineers in the Environment Service. The implementation of schemes should be in line with the objectives and programme outlined in the LTP.

With regard to provision of facilities in Pontefract, the Pontefract park cycle route has been identified for improvement in the 2004/05 financial year. Proposals to upgrade the surface are being developed as well as signing. Links are also to be developed into the Freeport site in subsequent years. This programme is subject to agreement from all the affected parties, although no objections are anticipated.

Subject to an assessment of safety and provision of necessary feeder cycle lanes, advanced stop lines may be included in improvements to the Skinner Lane / Northgate junction. Other improvements will upgrade facilities for the disabled and other pedestrians (tactile buttons, dropped kerbs etc). In the future all upgrades to junctions and new junctions across the district should be subject to cycle audit. Both the cycle officer and various traffic engineers have been involved in the CTC sponsored Benchmarking Project which began earlier this year. They have already visited Harrogate and will visit other local authorities to look at examples of good and bad practice with regard to cycling provision. It is hoped that this will improve the quality and amount of facilities provided for facilities in the district.

Although I would agree that cycle facilities should have been considered for the Baghill Lane bridge, I would concur with Peter that safety is paramount and that facilities are not always possible, that otherwise seem simple to implement.

Although the LTP is a 5 year programme, adjustments need to be made over the course of the plan to account for schemes that are delayed or unachievable. In the case of cycling schemes, delays often arise when we have to negotiate with private land owners to improve routes over their land. For example the Horbury to Wakefield cycle route has suffered delays due to protracted negotiations with Network Rail. We are still awaiting written approval to resurface a 500m section to the west of the M1. 6% of the Integrated Transport Budget is to be spent on cycle schemes in 2004/05, compared to 7% in 2003/04. This relates specifically to cycle tracks, cycle parking and other specific cycle schemes. Expenditure on advanced stop lines, general junction improvements, and bus priorities (bus lanes etc) provide benefits for cyclists, but are recorded as schemes under other categories. Considerable expenditure on bus lanes is being spent in the Wakefield city area this financial year, which will benefit cyclists on the A655, A638 and A61 to the south of the city.

We are currently beginning the process of producing the 2nd Local Transport Plan. This gives us an opportunity to make a clear policy statement re cycling that will attract more funding for schemes across West Yorkshire, which we intend to take. The Wakefield district cycle forum and the area forums have been engaged in the process of identifying priorities for scheme implementation which will guide the development of LTP2. Constructive dialogue has been exchanged with the forum over the last 2 years.

Positive outcomes are beginning to be realised. Progress has been slow, but this is not a problem unique to Wakefield. Other more traditionally pro-active Local Authorities have experienced similar problems when implementing schemes, particularly off road routes.

To conclude whilst you are frustrated at lack of progress, it is not true that nothing is happening. I appreciate that you are based in Pontefract and feel overlooked, but schemes will begin to be implemented shortly. I reiterate that policies are in place to promote cycling. The hierarchy of consideration (with pedestrians and cyclists at the top) needs to be adhered to and further measures provided to promote safe cycling. We are working with a finite budget and are involving the forum to help establish priorities.

regards

Andrew Spittlehouse

Acting Team Leader, Transport Strategy Spatial Policy Tel 01924 306697

Response to letter #2

This second letter re-iterates that Nothing has been done for cyclists in Pontefract

It makes promises for the new Local Transport Plan, yet many of the objectives set out in the first one have not been achieved (Read sections 8.8, 8.9., 8.10 and 9.2) N.B. Originallylinks were placed here to http://www.wyltp.com/plan/pdf/chap8.pdf and http://www.wyltp.com/plan/pdf/chap9.pdf. I have left them in but as ofDecember 19^th 2006 they were not working. Ed.

It seeks to place blame on other agencies and is typical of the inability of WMDC to put up their hands and accept sole responsibility for the tragic state of provision for Walkers and Cyclists

"6% of the Integrated Transport Budget" is a frighteningly insignificant portion of the amount spent on the total transport budget in this district

"They have already visited Harrogate" - Oh my God, what next?

etc etc etc.

I really do not wish to reply personally to such inane comments, but I do want to put them on the internet for that small portion of the world concerned with social awareness in WMDC to see.

Marlpit Lane: 03

July 2^nd 2004

Naturally no replies have been offered to any of the points raised in the last posting , once again lending weight to the fact that anybody trying to promote sensible transport policy in WMDC area will eventually discover that ‘dialogue’ dries up when it does not involve Newton Bar’s plans.

One of the main points about previous postings was the restructuring of Marlpit Lane. It is now open to traffic, so it is only fair that I put up some pictures with explanations. I am specifically interested in whether things have been made better or worse for cyclists. Whereas before there was one route, there are now two, i.e. the road and the ‘path’, so each must be regarded in turn.

Originally the road was direct, well surfaced and would score a ‘7’ using the objective criteria set out here and could reasonably be described on that scale as ‘good’. The new main road achieves the same score. Granted it is wider and currently lacks the rough edges of the old road, but has the disadvantage of carrying much faster and more traffic. It might be speculated, in addition, that an insurance company might now regard claims from cyclists injured on the road less favourably. The path, on the other hand, scores only a ‘5’ or is deemed ‘passable’. Considering the length of time the road has been shut to cyclists, things have been made worse for cyclists, contravening the undertaking laid out in the local transport plan’s hierarchy of consideration which states “that each group of users is given proper consideration and that schemes will not make existing conditions worse for the more vulnerable. (my italics).

The real crime is the squandering of opportunity to actually achieve something. Examine the photos and it is not difficult to imagine that with little imagination and no extra cost the path could have been made a decent standard.

Northern end of Marlpit Lane after re-structuring (2nd July 2004) Southern end of Marlpit Lane after re-structuring (2nd July 2004)

Images 1 & 2: There is no way on and off the path at its start and end points. – bejaesus, that’s the cost of three bloody kerbstones!!! (They even put the drop in, but at a totally inappropriate place).

Looking north up Marlpit Lane after re-structuring (2nd July 2004)

Image 3: The path is only 1.8 meters wide, which though nodding in the direction of the DoT’s (poor by continental standards) guidance :- "Cycle lanes on links should be a minimum of 1.5m wide… ignores the dénouement of that particular sentence … and 2m wherever possible. I think it seems obvious that ‘possible’ was possible (From: DfT, Cycle-friendly Infrastructure, page 46, paragraph 11.3.2).

Detail of side track on Marlpit Lane after re-structuring (2nd July 2004)

Image 4: The surface of the path offers increased rolling resistance in fine weather (you can see the tracks of my bike in Image 3 and the friable nature in image 4)

Break in side track on Marlpit Lane after re-structuring (2nd July 2004)

Image 5: There is now a ‘give way’ half way along the track, where there was none before

It seems obvious that cost offered little impedance to the project, therefore money might have been spent making a real improvement, yet in effect all it has done is made travelling to Darrington by car faster (cheaper) and cycling worse. The negative effects of such policies are well documented and should be familiar to the planners and engineers at Newton Bar. They appear, however, nonplussed, by their systematic refusal to adopt sustainable and practical social transport policy.

Any non time-wasting replies will gladly be published and addressed on this site (criticism is not encouraged on the ‘official’ site) (They haven’t got a server big enough).