Were cycle lanes through Headingley really needed? I’ve used them at rush hour and they’re empty - Yorkshire Post Letters

I write further to my letter published in the Yorkshire Post back in March, when construction of the new cycle lanes through Headingley was at its height.

Having travelled through Leeds on two consecutive mornings, first by car and then by bicycle, I feel compelled to question once again the wisdom of spending such enormous sums of public money on these schemes.

On October 13, between 8am and 9am, during the peak rush hour, I drove from the Headingley Arndale Centre towards Hyde Park. Despite this being one of the busiest periods of the day, I did not see a single cyclist using the new cycle lane.

The following morning, October 14, I made a similar journey, but this time by bicycle, travelling between 9am and 10am. I set off from Adel at approximately 9am to reach a garage on Pontefract Road in Leeds, where my car was being repaired.

Between the Headingley Arndale Centre and Hyde Park, I encountered just one other cyclist.

On the remainder of my journey, using the cycle lanes from Woodhouse Moor towards the garage, I saw only three more cyclists.

Thus, on a journey across a substantial part of Leeds, using cycling infrastructure which has cost the public millions of pounds, I encountered a grand total of four other cyclists.

Of course, these observations represent merely a snapshot of two weekday sunny mornings, but they surely raise legitimate questions about whether the enormous expenditure can be justified by the apparent level of use. What concerned me even more, however, was the design of the cycle lanes around Crown Point Road and Crown Point Bridge.

Having travelled down St Peter’s Street, I needed to reach Crown Point Road to cross the bridge. I found the cycleway arrangements extraordinarily difficult to negotiate. The designated routes did not appear to take me in the direction I needed to travel, and I was obliged to cross traffic at points which I considered potentially hazardous.

As someone who regularly travels both by bicycle and by car, I genuinely struggle to see how these elaborate arrangements have improved cyclist safety. Indeed, in certain circumstances, I believe they may have made matters worse.

This brings me back to the public consultation at Weetwood Hall concerning the alterations to Lawnswood Roundabout, works which are now nearing completion.

At that meeting, several cyclists stood up and made it perfectly clear that they were quite happy with the existing road arrangements and did not want the proposed alterations. Their views were expressed repeatedly, yet the scheme proceeded regardless.

I cannot help wondering whether the people responsible for designing some of these elaborate cycleway systems actually use them themselves.

I am certainly not opposed to cycling infrastructure. As a regular cyclist, I welcome sensible measures which genuinely improve safety. However, there is an enormous difference between providing practical facilities and constructing expensive, complicated schemes which appear to create as many difficulties as they are intended to solve.

Meanwhile, throughout Leeds, existing roads continue to deteriorate, with potholes, failing surfaces and inadequate maintenance becoming increasingly commonplace.

Surely the priority should be to maintain the roads we already have, rather than spend millions on schemes of questionable benefit, particularly when the number of cyclists actually using them appears, at least from my recent experience, to be remarkably small.

Common sense and value for money should surely be at the heart of public spending decisions, particularly when local authorities face such considerable financial pressures.