The plan to improve Lawnswood roundabout has been approved.
The scheme that's going forward is the one that was consulted on in 2021/22, if you want the full details you can read the business case and get the detail on what it will include on the council website but we've decided to share a summary below, outlining the pros and cons, along with our thoughts on the alternatives.
Throughout this process our priorities as your local councillors have been to make sure:
We get a safe crossing point for pedestrians
We get a scheme that tackles the serious, proven safety issues for all road users
Good consultation is carried out, with the widest possible range of people represented - not just those with the loudest voices
Summary of the Lawnswood scheme
What it includes
Signal crossings at each wing of the roundabout to allow pedestrians to cross the road and to regulate when cars enter the roundabout.
Segregated cycle lanes around the roundabout to allow cyclists to safely and confidently navigate the roundabout (introducing a further barrier between cars and pedestrians).
Priority bus signalling to hold green lights slightly longer if a bus is approaching, making bus journeys quicker and more reliable.
Impact on trees and natural environment
There was a lot of concern about the original proposal, which involved the cutting down of many trees. This proposal will require the removal of three trees (one unhealthy, two healthy) - these will be replaced at a ratio of 3:1.
Impact on safety for drivers
Lawnswood roundabout is consistently in the top 'sites for concern' for safety in Leeds. Based on similar schemes in Leeds and around the country, the expectation is a 50% reduction in what are known as 'Killed or Seriously Injured' (KSI) incidents.
"The majority of collisions at the roundabout involve human error, such as vehicles entering the roundabout failing to give way to vehicles circulating the roundabout, or rear end shunt collisions on the approaches to the roundabout. Signalisation of the roundabout is expected to reduce the risk of collisions, by reducing the likelihood of these errors in judgement."
Many incidents at the roundabout thankfully do not involve someone being Killed or Seriously Injured, but for the same reason we would expect a reduction in those incidents as well - saving money for car owners and public services.
Impact on pedestrians, cyclists, and bus users
From the official report:
"The existing roundabout has no formal crossing facilities, and no segregated facilities for cyclists. Given the high traffic volumes and speeds at the roundabout, the lack of active travel facilities results in a roundabout which acts as a major barrier to walking, wheeling and cycling, which is particularly pertinent given the proximity to Lawnswood School."
"Buses experience significant delays at the roundabout under the current priority arrangement. The proposed new traffic signals... allows bus movements to be prioritised ahead of general traffic. The scheme is expected to result in reductions to bus journey times, thus helping to generate modal shift towards buses."
How it'll work
Signalisation will work in two 25 second phases: a north-south movement, and an east-west movement. If you want to cross as a pedestrian, it will show you the green light when the cars are moving in the other phase.
For example, if you want to cross from Lawnswood school going north to the other side of the ring road then you will get the green light when cars are going north/south.
This means cars and pedestrians will each have to wait a maximum of 25 seconds before being allowed to cross.
If you are a driver coming from the east (for example) heading north towards Otley then you will be held by two signals: going west, and then going north.
This approach has been extensively modelled for peak times on worst case scenarios.
Impact on congestion and air pollution
Using absolute worst case scenarios, this scheme would increase the time some drivers spend waiting to cross the roundabout at off-peak times.
Concerns have been raised that this could increase local air pollution. We take this concern very seriously, and are pushing for comprehensive air pollution modelling.
However: cars increasingly stop their engines ('idling') while waiting, there are already queues at peak times outside the school - this scheme is only likely to increase the numbers of cars waiting at off-peak times, and in the medium-long term cars are switching to electric.
We have to balance these risks with the existing road safety risk and other benefits of the scheme.
What it costs and how it's funded
The scheme will cost around £13 million, £12,949,080 of which comes from government funding to tackle safety at dangerous roundabouts/junctions - this money cannot be used on any other services, much as we would like £13m to spend on social services.
One of the business case frameworks used to assess the scheme, provided by the Department for Transport, assesses the scheme as "poor value for money". You may have seen this quoted on political leaflets from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. This is extremely misleading. The framework shows the scheme as poor value for money because of the weight it places on waiting times for car drivers - in this case that the extra seconds drivers spend waiting to allow pedestrians cross the road which we should all do as a matter of safety and courtesy, outweighs the safety benefits.
Our objectives as a council, and the objectives of the government's own funding criteria, are different to this outdated framework. We put safety first, and think it's acceptable that some drivers will have to wait a few seconds extra if it means fewer crashes, a safe pedestrian crossing point, and segregated cycle facilities.
Who was consulted?
Over 600 people filled in the consultation. There were public consultation events in the area, aided by leaflet and letter drops.
There were also specific events and discussions with:
Pupils and staff at Lawnswood school
Groups representing disabled people
Bus operators
West Park Residents Association
Weetwood councillors and Adel & Wharfedale councillors
Of the 607 respondents: 52.8% reported feeling “Happy” or “Very Happy” towards the proposals, 12.3% felt “Not sure/ok about it”, and 35.0% felt “Unhappy” or “Very Unhappy”.
As councillors we have had hundreds of conversations with residents at their doors about this scheme, right across the ward. We have found that most people we speak to agree that some extra time spent waiting at off-peak times is an acceptable trade off to make it safer for drivers and to provide safe pedestrian and cyclist crossings, but we accept that not everyone agrees.
Who has approved this scheme?
The decision to fund this scheme was approved by the government as well as a cross party group of councillors on the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. The decision to go ahead was made by the Executive of Leeds City Council, and was further approved by a Leeds Scrutiny board when Leeds Conservative Party councillors asked for it to be reviewed.
Managing disruption
Schemes like this do cause disruption while they are being implemented. There's no getting around this, the council can only try its best to minimise this. The cost of the scheme is inflated partly because as much of the work as possible will be carried out at 'off peak' times (early morning, late evening) to minimise disruption. As your local councillors we will:
Make sure there's a comprehensive traffic management plan for the works and ensure that's shared with local residents
Keep in regular contact with the local transport team and police to tackle any emerging issues
Write to local residents so they know who to contact and how to contact us if they spot a problem
What about the alternatives?
This scheme offers many benefits, which we feel outweigh the disadvantages. We have been involved in many discussions with transport officers, other residents, and other councillors from different parties to assess the plan in depth and look at alternatives.
All proposed alternative plans fail to achieve our goals, which are: improving safety for drivers, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to safely cross the roundabout, minimising impact on congestion.
Here are the two main alternatives that get suggested and why we don't support them:
Simply add Toucan crossings at each wing of the junction. This would allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road. But it wouldn't improve safety for drivers - the key current safety concern at the roundabout - and so it would fail to win funding. Similarly, because traffic would be stopped at times indicated by those wishing to cross the road
Do nothing. This fails to improve safety, leaves residents without a way to cross the road, and to be clear this money can only be spent on improving safety at junctions or roundabouts so we are left with no benefit.
Improving road safety and making life easier for pedestrians is a pledge we have put on every one of our leaflets, it's what we were elected to do.
We appreciate that losing three trees is a shame and that the scheme risks some extra congestion, but we believe that it is the right decision to go ahead with it for the reasons outlined above.
