Road, Rail & Access Issues

[twevsmiff]

https://www.yourvoice.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/linkroute

A fly through animation of each route is linked from the above page if you scroll down

 

[Aviador]

Option A

Option B

Option C

 

[White Heather]

As posted in the General Thread, I think these animations are superb and the designers have done an amazing job of avoiding most of the buildings in the area that might otherwise have been bulldozed. I have completed the on line survey and given my thoughts, and wearing my Support Group hat for once, I ask that anyone who supports LBA does the same. It really is vital that sufficient support is demonstrated. Far too often in the past, people have assumed it would happen anyway, so no need to bother, and we all know what happened.

 

[LBA8098]

I too have completed the survey supporting option A!!

 

[Finger66]

Likewise

 

[GDC1]

Me too

 

[Hendi]

Very good detailed videos of all 3 options. And how the parkway links up. I also supported option A

 

[White Heather]

I supported Option A too. It seems a no brainer to me, although Option B is now better than it was orginally. It won't resolve traffic on Victoria Avenue though and will simply lead to queues of traffic in the tunnel during peak times. It also won't do anything for the proposed Employment Area of the Park and Ride proposal.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Voted for Option A - much better option then the other two. Just a few disappointments with option A - they are not linking white house lane up with Scotland Lane/Dean Lane Junction. Also what happens to Dean Lane? That lane is a country road which connects up to Otley Road.

Also side note completely - don't understand why they can't also do option c at the same time and substantially improve links towards Bradford.

 

[leedslad]

Supported option A but pointed out they should consider the route any future light rail terminal link will take so that they don't prejudice the business case by blocking the route

 

[Aviador]

Voted for Option A - much better option then the other two. Just a few disappointments with option A - they are not linking white house lane up with Scotland Lane/Dean Lane Junction. Also what happens to Dean Lane? That lane is a country road which connects up to Otley Road.

Also side note completely - don't understand why they can't also do option c at the same time and substantially improve links towards Bradford.

I thought the same. Some significant improvements are going to be needed on the A658 at some point in the future.

Could option A actually form a first phase of an eventual link to the M62 via Pudsey, or alternatively a full Aireborough bypass linking with the Burley in Wharfedale bypass?

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Or both options Aviador.

And they can spend some bloody money on option c whilst they are it. Too much is spent down south - its Yorkshires time to shine.


Especially if we go independent. We've got Yorkshire Airlines, Yorkshires airport, Yorkshires tea rooms after all.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

And they can spend some bloody money on option c whilst they are it. Too much is spent down south.

Not everywhere 'down south'. The South West doesn't see much. We haven't even got electric railways, with no sign of the situation changing in the foreseeable future.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

By south - i mean London let's be honest. 15 billion on one project. Imagine that been spent around the country. And don't even get me started on the political vanity project HS2. Anyway i have hijacked enough of this thread.

 

[LBA4EVER]

With option A and B I have one big issue, Why are they not dual carriageways all the way? Can you imagine the traffic on them that would just bottle up if for example they was perhaps a slower moving vehicle and with each end having traffic light junctions! with option b you would get traffic jamming up the roundabout where the multiflight entrance is due to the traffic lights that join upto current a658 and at the other end the pathetic horsforth roundabout jams would back upto the start of this new road. Also why traffic lights? whats wrong with roundabouts if large and spacious?

 

[Deleted member 82]

Fight2win, I agree I was surprised that they hadn’t dualed the road, but I think the compromise is the cycleways and these will be offset against environmental damage. Roundabouts are rarely more effective unless they have traffic signals and they take up more space. So again the signals will be seen as effective and easier to engineer and deliver. In my mind, use of tunnels would be the way to go, but in the UK we do quick and dirty and are left with either eye sores or noise and traffic blighting areas. For what it’s worth as a non local, option A is marginally better than B and option C I really didn’t see any benefit. Hopefully, something will get sorted soon so that the airport can continue to build.

 

[Hendi]

I think option B will cause huge issues around the tunnel with traffic backing up as it does now sometimes. Both A and B will take some traffic off the local roads around yeadon/horsforth. I'm guessing rounabouts are not an option as there is not enough space to build a suitable one perhaps?

 

[LBA4EVER]

As I write these pieces I’m down in the Benidorm area of Spain.to the back of Benidorm the new roads they have just constructed to ease the traffic flow just makes all the options proposed around lba look pathetic! They have a new 3 mile long dual carriageway with long sweeping slip roads that mainly enter large roundabouts. It works fantastic and keeps the 4 main approaches into Benidorm free flowing. It’s just a shame the Spanish drivers are so bad! I can tell you now that the options proposed would be a nightmare. The traffic heading down to the horsforth roundabout will bottle up twice as much causing traffic to jam up the hill and towards rawdon too. The alteratations that have been done to horsforth roundabout is absolutely terrible,the words I have for those who have planned that I’m not going to say on here! The Rodley roundabout is an epic disaster too!

 

[LBA4EVER]

There is just no forward vision or thinking, you need a dual carriageway for the increase in traffic in years to come and I say make space for roundabouts,they work better instead of more polluting traffic lights, and if drivers signalled correctly on roundabouts so we all no which way we are going then with good timing it’s always possible to keep going without stopping!

 

[Finger66]

Whilst I agree on the dual carriageway suggestion I am not sure we can compare to Spain, a country that is far less densely populated than the UK and has more spare land. That all said, forward thinking for the future should be a serious consideration in the decision making process and would reduce the use of future tax payers money