North Yorkshire Council has revealed plans to extend the Otley Road cycle path in Harrogate. You can read more about the proposals here. In this opinion article, local councillor Michael Schofield has his say.

I support making it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle around Harrogate.

But supporting active travel should never mean that we stop asking difficult questions about the schemes being proposed in its name.

The latest proposals for cycle infrastructure along Pannal Ash Road and Otley Road affect communities I represent. I have therefore been studying the plans and, more importantly, continuing to listen to the residents and local groups who will actually have to live with the consequences.

I have not predetermined my final position. But I do have concerns.

And having previously opposed elements of the first Otley Road cycle scheme, I believe we have a responsibility to learn from that experience rather than repeat it.

A cycle route has to work for everyone. There is sometimes a temptation to reduce this debate to a simple choice: you either support cycling or you oppose it. I reject that completely.

Good cycling infrastructure can make our roads safer, give people an alternative to the car and encourage more people to cycle.

Poorly designed cycling infrastructure can do precisely the opposite.

It can create conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, inconvenience residents, create confusing transitions between cycleways and roads and ultimately produce infrastructure that people simply don’t want to use.

That isn’t good for pedestrians, it isn’t good for residents and it certainly isn’t good for cyclists.

Pedestrians cannot become an afterthought

One of the things I want properly examining is the proposed use of shared pedestrian and cycle space.

The Otley Road drawings describe a shared-use foot/cycleway, generally with a minimum width of three metres.

On a drawing that may appear perfectly reasonable. But roads and pavements don’t exist on drawings. Imagine that space at a busy time.

A parent with young children. Someone walking a dog. A wheelchair or mobility-scooter user. An elderly resident. Someone with impaired sight or hearing.

Then introduce cyclists travelling in both directions.

We need to be absolutely satisfied that what looks technically possible on paper is safe and comfortable for the people who will actually use it. Where proper segregation between pedestrians and cyclists is achievable, I want to understand why shared use has been chosen instead.

What happens at driveways and junctions?

There are also numerous places where cycle infrastructure interacts with residential accesses, junctions and the carriageway itself.

These are exactly the locations where good design matters most.

Can someone reversing from their driveway see a cyclist approaching?

Can the cyclist see them?

What happens where cyclists leave segregated infrastructure and rejoin the carriageway?

What happens where a segregated route suddenly becomes shared?

These aren’t arguments against cycle routes. They are arguments for designing them properly.

Rossett School deserves particular attention

The proposals around Pannal Ash Road, Hartley Road and Rossett School require especially careful consideration.

At school times this is an environment involving significant numbers of young pedestrians alongside cyclists, buses, cars and other traffic.

The plans include new crossing arrangements and junction treatments.

Before supporting those arrangements, I want to see the evidence that the interaction between all those users has been properly assessed at the busiest times of day.

Children’s safety cannot simply be another consideration within the design. It has to be fundamental to it.

We also need to talk about the environment

There is another irony we must avoid.

We should not deliver environmentally positive transport infrastructure by unnecessarily damaging the existing environment.

The plans identify potential tree removal and works to existing trees.

Along Otley Road there are also proposals affecting grass verges and existing drainage ditches, including sections where ditches would be piped.

That raises legitimate questions.

What ecological function do those ditches currently perform?

What happens to drainage?

What habitat is affected?

What happens to existing trees and their root systems?

Could alternative designs preserve more of the existing green infrastructure?

If a tree genuinely has to be removed to deliver an overwhelmingly beneficial scheme, then let’s see the evidence and appropriate replacement planting.

But removal should be the last option, not simply the easiest engineering solution.

Some existing pedestrian infrastructure is also changing

The plans include changes to pedestrian islands and crossings.

In one location an existing pedestrian island is proposed for removal in order to maintain the required road width.

That immediately raises a question for me:

What does that change mean for the pedestrian?

Someone young and able-bodied may comfortably cross a road in one movement.

Someone elderly, disabled or accompanied by young children may rely upon an island as a place of refuge.

Again, I am not saying the proposed replacement cannot be better. I am saying that the council needs to demonstrate that it is.

Consultation has to mean something

There is another principle at stake here.

Consultation cannot simply mean showing residents a design and asking whether they like it.

Meaningful consultation means being prepared to change the design.

I want residents along Pannal Ash Road and Otley Road to know which parts of these proposals are genuinely open to alteration.

I also want to know what alternative routes and designs were considered and why they were rejected.

The question shouldn’t be: “Can we physically fit a cycle route here?”

It should be: “What is the safest and best way of enabling people to cycle through this community while protecting pedestrians, residents and the environment?”

Those are very different questions.

I want the evidence

Before reaching my final position, I want North Yorkshire Council to provide the evidence behind these proposals.

That includes the relevant road-safety work, assessment against LTN 1/20 cycle infrastructure guidance, accessibility and equality considerations, environmental and tree assessments, drainage implications and the assessment of affected residential accesses.

If the evidence demonstrates that concerns have been properly addressed, then I will consider that evidence fairly.

If changes can produce a better scheme, I will support making those changes.

But if significant concerns remain unresolved and we are presented with another poorly devised scheme, I will oppose it.

I successfully opposed the previous proposals because I believed they were wrong for the area.

I will apply exactly the same test this time.

Not: which political party supports it?

Not: which political party opposes it?

But: Is it safe? Is it accessible? Does it protect pedestrians? Does it respect residents? Does it minimise environmental harm? And will it actually encourage people to cycle?

If the answer to those questions is yes, we will have achieved something worthwhile.

If the answer is no, we should have the courage to redesign it before spending the money.

Councillor Michael Schofield is a member of the Green and Independents group on North Yorkshire Council. His Harlow & St George's division includes the cycle path's intended route.