Decision on Bootham/ Gillygate junction should be deferred, says York Civic Trust

City transport bosses last week recommended against removing a lane of traffic from St Leonard’s Place as it approaches the Bootham/ Gillygate junction and creating an extra pedestrian crossing.

Instead, they said the council should go ahead with a simpler scheme, which would see traffic lights at the junction upgraded and crossings widened.

The two proposals were the subject of a major consultation. The council received more than 1,200 responses, of which almost half were in favour of the simpler scheme, while a third supported the more expensive scheme which would involve removing a lane of traffic.

Council officers said that although removing a traffic lane and creating an extra pedestrian crossing would improve road safety, cut waiting times for pedestrians and improve the appearance of the areas around York art gallery, it would cost £300,000 more than just upgrading the lights and widening crossings – and could also see rush hour journey times for buses and drivers increase by 90 per cent.

How the junction would look with a traffic lane removed and a new pedestrian crossing

They recommended going for the cheaper, simpler option, and asked Cllr Andy D’Agorne, the executive member for transport, to approve this at an Executive meeting on Tuesday.

But York Civic Trust says that, with the council about to launch a three month consultation on the future of transport in the city which will conclude in July, a decision on the Bootham/ Gillygate junction should be deferred until September.

Professor Tony May, chair of the Trust’s Transport Advisory Group, said the results of the council’s wider transport consultation would be available by then.

Since work on the Bootham/ Gillygate junction was not due to be implemented until January 2022, little would be lost by deferring a decision, he said.

The simpler scheme which has been recommended, which retains two lanes of traffic beside York Art Gallery

Referring to council officers’ recommendation to go for the cheaper scheme for the junction, he said: “The officers’ report raises as many questions as it answers.

“It includes new predictions for the impacts of the two schemes, which differ from those presented in the consultation.

“It exposes a serious escalation in the cost of the alternative scheme. It suggests that any scheme could be modified after implementation, without indicating what the abortive costs of doing so would be.

“It purports to present the key messages from the consultation, but fails to address the concerns which the Trust raised on the impacts on historic buildings in this nationally important setting.

“Of particular concern, it suggests that, by implementing the alternative scheme (involving the removal of a lane of traffic) the council would lay itself open to … judicial review or civil claim, and significant resulting costs, as a result of possible increases in pollution in Gillygate.

“Yet Gillygate has been heavily polluted for many years. Several years ago the council demonstrated that changing traffic signal timings halved the length of queues on the street. These measures could be used now.

“We encourage the council to test alternative ways to reduce pollution in Gillygate. On this basis, the Council should be able to make a decision in September in favour of a scheme which attracts clear majority support.”