North Yorkshire Council

Environment Executive Members

19 December 2025

Harrogate Transport Improvements Programme 2 Outcomes

Report of the Assistant Director, Highways and Infrastructure

1.0       PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1       To provide details of the outputs from the Harrogate Transport Improvement Package (HTIP) stage 2 study and to discuss options on next steps.

2.0       SUMMARY

2.1       Harrogate Transport Improvement Package (HTIP2) is the second stage of a study looking into ways to reduce congestion and encourage use of sustainable travel modes on the A61 Leeds Road corridor in Harrogate.  This phase of study is the most recent in a number of evolving studies of the Harrogate area, which have been developed in accordance with Department for Transport major scheme business case guidance.

2.2       This phase of study has been protracted and encountered delays due to the requirement to incorporate the modelling and forecasting from the West of Harrogate Transport Assessment (WoHTA) which has taken some time to be developed. The study takes the West of Harrogate (WoH) modelling into account but has a slightly different set of objectives which sit beyond the remit of the WoHTA, which essentially amounts to mitigation of development related traffic.  This means that HTIP is cognisant of WoH but isn’t constrained by its outputs.

2.3       A variety of interventions, across a wide range of modes and disciplines have been considered, tested and packaged together as part of this study.  They have been selected as a result of previous public engagement, best practice from other areas, and also their potential to deliver comprehensive and cumulative benefit to the study area.  The reason for undertaking this corridor study, rather than focussing on smaller scale, lower cost, discrete interventions was that experience and best practice have shown that to deliver quantifiable benefits, and transformational change, a multimodal package of linked measures is needed, which can offer people travelling a genuine choice of how to travel other than by car.  This means providing a range of travel options, which are safe, convenient and affordable, and which are competitive in terms of journey times and cost to the user.

2.4       The various measures have been put together into three packages of varying degrees of impact and costs. The ‘do minimum’, ‘do something’ and ‘do maximum’ packages vary significantly in costs and scale, but also consequently in their impacts and benefits.  Whilst this is not a linear function, there is a correlation between the extent of the investment and the likely resultant benefits.  The details of these packages, their possible impacts and outcomes, and a recommendation on next steps are set out in more detail within this report.

3.0       BACKGROUND

3.1       HTIP2 is the latest iteration of a long-term transport study, which will form the basis of a local major transport scheme.  The study started life in 2017 as the Harrogate Relief Road Review and was set in motion at the request of elected members on the then Harrogate and Knaresborough Area Committee, who wanted to understand whether various existing relief road alignments, which were protected through planning, were desirable, or had any likelihood of being delivered, or whether they could be deleted from council searches.

3.2       After a significant baselining and stage one data-gathering study, the Harrogate Congestion Study (HCS) commenced, and in line with existing standard industry practice and Department for Transport (DfT) requirements, widened from a study purely considering roads, to a study considering a much wider range of transport options and modes, known as a multi modal study.

3.3       Public engagement took place in the summer of 2019. This included an online survey, and a number of face-to-face events, plus coverage in local and regional press.  A leaflet setting out detail of how and when people could participate was distributed to 56,000 properties within the study area to encourage participation.

3.4       Over 15,500 responses were received to the survey, through the online survey, on printed paper versions, and via email. This included 1,010 completed paper versions of the form.

In addition, around 1,000 people attended the 9 public events that were held in various locations in Harrogate and Knaresborough.

3.5       The response to the engagement was conclusive that those responding did not want a relief road, or bypass, to be built in their area; rather they wanted new transport investment to be focused on sustainable transport options. Whilst support for new road building was very low, conversely support for investment in active travel, bus priority, smarter choices, and park and ride was high.

3.6       Notably, however, there was support for further development of a bypass scheme in Killinghall. As a result, further development work was commissioned on that to understand the likely value for money of a standalone Killinghall Bypass, and to assess the deliverability of such a scheme.  That work has now concluded, and the scheme has been added to the major scheme pipeline long list, which is now the responsibility of the Mayoral Combined Authority.

3.7       Following the HCS engagement, we commissioned WSP, our then framework consultants, to undertake further DfT compliant option development work. It was agreed that this would look across the Harrogate area on a multimodal basis, at where improvements could be made, and what form they might take.

3.8       HTIP1 reported on those findings in the winter of 2020. The study area included Harrogate and Knaresborough. The study considered best practice nationally and internationally, and recommended areas for further development. It included the A61, A661 and the A59 and looked at where improvements could be made to bus, cycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and junction enhancements, and also whether there might be opportunity to construct and deliver park and ride sites and services.

3.9       Further to this and taking into account that the costs of delivering investment on this scale would outstrip the council’s own budgets, it was recommended that the study filtered down further to focus on one key arterial route, or corridor, at a time. Therefore, it was determined that the next phase of study would concentrate on the A61 Leeds Road. This particular route was chosen as it was considered to be the area with the greatest potential for intervention, due to a variety of characteristics and features, and constraints on some other key routes in the network.  Since then, work has continued on transport modelling, targeted engagement (using a market research specialist), and development of options, including some outline design work, for walking, cycling, bus priority and junction redesign, as part of this phase of study, known as HTIP2.

3.10     In addition, we have broadened out the study of park and ride, and despite the main study focus on the A61, the park and ride element looks across the Harrogate urban area. This is in recognition that for park and ride to function effectively and be attractive it needs to offer genuine travel choice, but also be cheaper than other options such as driving into the town centre to park. From the perspective of equity, if town centre parking is to be disincentivised through raising parking charges, then there should be alternative travel options across the town and its radial routes, and not just from one area.

3.11     This phase of the study has been protracted and significantly lengthened by a number of factors. One of these is that the study was launched during the Covid pandemic, which resulted in some delays due to issues around staffing and also the ability to undertake site visits and surveys during the various phases of ‘lockdown’ due to consequential changed travel habits.

3.12     In addition to this, the biggest cause of delay to the project has been the interface with the WoH development management project.  This project, which is complex and includes a number of private and public sector partners, considers how best to mitigate the impact of approximately 4,000 new dwellings being built in the west of Harrogate area and the consequent changes to demand on the existing highway network.  Whilst HTIP2 doesn’t explicitly seek to mitigate this development impact, it does take the forecast traffic impacts of that development into account and ensures that any recommendations made as part of HTIP2 are not contradicting any of the approaches being recommended by colleagues in Development Management. It is for this reason that the project has been delayed whilst various iterations of development mitigation were considered, in some cases rejected, and then agreed in the form of a development wide transport assessment. The figures from that transport assessment forecast have been used as part of the HTIP2 modelling, and proposals from HTIP2 have similarly been tested to ensure that they do not contradict, or undermine the mitigations set out in the West of Harrogate transport assessment.

3.13     As is typical in project development, the HTIP2 study has resulted in a range of potential options; a do minimum, a do something, and a do maximum option, each of which are based on a combination of various elements to create a package of measures.  Prior to selection, these were sifted, and then ranked, to enable the best-performing measures to be put together.   

3.14     The range of potential package costs is wide, and both the do something and do maximum options would fall outside of the council’s own budgets. Schemes costing more than £5million are generally considered to be ‘large local major schemes’ and if a local transport authority cannot fund a scheme of that scale, they would apply to government to be included in the large local major programme. As a result of devolution, and the formation of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (YNYCA), the funding, powers and responsibilities of the local transport authority have now been passed to the York and North Yorkshire MCA. The MCA also have greater access and flexibility in funding that would traditionally have been held by central government, and as a result can make decisions on funding larger, higher value schemes.  On that basis, the likelihood is that once a preferred option for HTIP2 has been selected, this would be passed to the MCA, for further development and delivery and either delivered through their budgets or submitted to the DfT for consideration.

3.15     The options considered include a small number of possible park and ride sites, based on use of an adaptive service, (where an existing bus service calls in at/serves a new park and ride site), bus priority and signal enhancements to give opportunities for buses to bypass queueing traffic, junction redesign to improve general traffic flow and also prioritise sustainable modes, enhanced crossing facilities to give pedestrians and cyclists better facilities and make walking and cycling more attractive and feasible as an option, and cycle lanes predominantly using quieter routes. The aim of the programme is to develop a comprehensive package of measures along the route, because evidence has shown that standalone measures are often less effective than coordinated and complementary packages of investment in infrastructure, where cumulative benefits can be delivered.

3.16     Once a preferred option has been selected, a programme of next steps will be drawn up. In addition to the development and delivery of physical infrastructure through capital investment, a supporting programme of promotion, behaviour change, and ‘softer’ measures would be beneficial to encourage people to change their travel habits.  This might include promotion and communication initiatives, but also travel planning and travel advocacy initiatives or the provision of tailored travel information could help to support people to change their travel choices.    Further, initiatives to encourage and make the use of public transport easier may form part of any future programme, including cross ticketing initiatives, improvements to information products and also improvements to interchange facilities for multi modal journeys.

4.0       POLICY CONTEXT

4.1       HTIP2 is a longstanding transport planning project, which sits within an evolving transport and land use planning policy context.  In 2023, North Yorkshire County Council merged with the 7 district councils in the county to become a unitary authority, North Yorkshire Council, in a process known as Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).  As a consequence of this, work has begun on developing a unified single local plan to cover the entire geographic area of North Yorkshire. Whilst the local plan is primarily concerned with planning policy, transport is a key element of how places function, and transport strategy, particularly around how we ensure access to services in local areas will form part of the new local plan.

4.2       In 2024 a Mayor for North Yorkshire and York was elected, to lead YNYCA. YNYCA has transport as one of its key responsibilities and has become the local transport authority for York and North Yorkshire and will take the lead on developing a new Local Transport Plan (LTP)for York and North Yorkshire. The LTP will set out the strategy and policy approach for transport in the area. The LTP is a statutory, strategic transport policy framework, which will set out how we will work towards national and local objectives for transport, and how we will ensure these are consistent with policy aspirations in other thematic areas.

4.3       YNYCA have already published a strategic transport framework (STF) setting out the mayor’s high level vision for transport and how that links in to other emerging strategies.  The STF will sit above the LTP, but it is anticipated that the LTP will provide more detail on how the aims in the STF will be applied in different parts of York and North Yorkshire and will also include an implementation plan setting out investment priorities and a programme of schemes.  We have been awaiting new guidance on LTPs from the DfT since 2022, and were hopeful that it may be issued in 2025 as this would ensure scheme and policy development in line with national approaches. However, YNYCA and partners are starting development of the new LTP without the guidance as DfT have now indicated that it will not be published imminently.

4.4       Linked to this, more generally, we are awaiting with interest further details from the DfT on bus re-regulation, and also guidance from the DfT on how they are going to support authorities in delivering active travel schemes. These schemes can be difficult to deliver, and there is often public resistance to any suggestion of restricting vehicle movements, which can make delivery of active travel schemes protracted and sometimes, ultimately, unsuccessful.

4.5       A Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) for North Yorkshire has been published and refreshed. The BSIP sets out the council’s vision for buses and how that will be delivered in the coming years.  YNYCA will take on preparation of a joint BSIP for York and North Yorkshire and that will be published in due course.

4.6       HTIP has been developed on the basis of extant policy, strategy and guidance. Should a further stage pf development be taken forward on this project, any changes to policy will be reflected at that stage.

5.0       HTIP2

5.1       REPORT FORMAT AND CHAPTERS

5.2       As set out in section 3 above, the HTIP2 report covers a range of modes and possible interventions for each of those modes, of varying degrees of size and cost. 

5.3       The report includes a site assessment, which considers a variety of external factors that may provide a constraint or opportunity for the project element being discussed.  Furthermore, the report takes account of other policy issues, socio economic and demographic data and also transport data which might be pertinent to the design and delivery of the scheme.

5.4       Stakeholder engagement, which was undertaken by a specialist market research company is discussed in chapter 3.

5.5       A summary of the appraisal of sites for park and ride is set out in chapter 4.

5.6       Chapter 5 sets out the details of a number of options that have been developed though the study and how they have been refined and sifted, including approaches to scheme modelling, costing and design. This chapter also sets out how the options have evolved from HTIP1 to HTIP2.

5.7       Details of junction modelling are set out in chapter 6.  These include the approaches taken to modelling, details of the software used to model the various junctions and features of the network, and the results from that modelling.

5.8       Chapters 7, 8 and 9 include details of cost estimates for the various measures suggested, based on industry standard approaches to cost estimation, an assessment on a qualitative basis of the impact on carbon of the various elements of the programme that have been suggested, and a sifting process in the form of an impact assessment, leading to a number of suggestions of package options.

5.9       From this, a series of conclusions and recommendations is made.

6.0       SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1       As set out above, the report details a wide range of potential schemes and interventions and then assesses them all, based on their anticipated benefits and impacts, and also the likely costs involved in delivering those elements.  This assessment provides a score for each element, which is then used to determine where, if at all, that measure should be included in a package.  This scoring also results in some of the options being discounted, or only progressed in certain prescribed scenarios. 

6.2       Because funding has not as yet been secured for the delivery of this programme, the study was developed on the basis that the options for delivery could be ‘modular’ with elements added in or taken out as funding might permit.

6.3       This study gives a very high level, qualitative view of value for money, but any future development for this project would require a more detailed economic appraisal to meet the funder’s requirements (either DfT or YNYCA). This is a standard major project development approach. However, once a preferred package is selected, calculating value for money is relatively straightforward, albeit that some of the non-monetised benefits (such as the impact of schemes on townscape, biodiversity, security and accessibility) are more difficult to calculate.

6.4       Summary of the packages:

Intervention and cost estimate (based on 2024 prices)	Package elements	Deliverability and acceptability	Who benefits?
Do minimum Cost £1.8m	Implement MOVA responsive traffic signal control and pedestrian crossing upgrades at Pannal Bank/ Follifoot Road junction.	Moderate to good deliverability. Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians, buses and general traffic.
	Turning movements restricted at the Hookstone Road / Leadhall Lane junction. Provide new controlled pedestrian crossing on Leadhall Lane.	Moderate to good deliverability. Moderate to low public acceptability	Pedestrians, buses and general traffic.
	Provide signalised crossings set back from the Prince of Wales Roundabout	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians.
Do something. Cost £8.9m	MOVA control and pedestrian crossing upgrades at the Pannal Bank/ Follifoot Road junction. Right turn movements restricted.	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians, buses and general traffic.
	Turning movements restricted at the Hookstone Road / Leadhall Lane junction. Provide new controlled pedestrian crossing on Leadhall Lane.	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to low public acceptability	Pedestrians, bus users and general traffic.
	Provide four new zebra crossings and two signalised crossings at Park Drive Roundabout	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians.
	Provide signalised crossings set back from the Prince of Wales Roundabout	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians.
	3m N/B bus and cycle lanes between Thirkhill Drive and Pannal Bank; and between Fulwith Mill Lane and Leadhall Lane.	Moderate deliverability Poor public acceptability	Cyclists
	Restrict movements at the Kings Road/Parliament Street junction and widen footways.	Moderate deliverability Moderate acceptability	Pedestrians and buses and general traffic.
	Cycle route connecting the town centre with Pannal via new links, quiet streets and public rights of way	Moderate deliverability Moderate acceptability	Cyclists.
Do Maximum Cost £38.6m	MOVA control and pedestrian crossing upgrades at the Pannal Bank/ Follifoot Road junction. Right turn movements restricted.	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	All users
	Turning movements restricted at the Hookstone Road / Leadhall Lane junction. Provide new controlled pedestrian crossing on Leadhall Lane.	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to low public acceptability	Pedestrians, and vehicles using the A61
	Convert the Park Drive Roundabout into signalised crossroads closing St Georges Road and South Drive.	Moderate to poor deliverability Moderate public acceptability	Pedestrians and vehicles using the A61
	Provide signalised crossings set back from the Prince of Wales Roundabout	Moderate to good deliverability Moderate to good public acceptability	Pedestrians
	4.5m N/B bus and cycle lanes between Thirkhill Drive and Pannal Bank; and between Fulwith Mill Lane and Leadhall Lane.	Moderate to poor deliverability Poor public acceptability	Bus users and cyclists
	Town centre improvements including N/B bus and cycle lane with loss of parking on west side of A61. Footways widened on both sides of the road.	Moderate deliverability Moderate to poor acceptability	Bus users, cyclists, pedestrians.
	Restrict movements at the Kings Road/Parliament Street junction and widen footways.	Moderate deliverability Moderate acceptability	Pedestrians and buses and general traffic.
	2 x cycle routes connecting the town centre with Pannal via new routes, quiet streets and public rights of way.	Moderate deliverability Moderate acceptability	Cyclists.
	Provide a Park & Ride site on site J4: East of Leeds Road, Pannal (assumed revenue neutral).	Moderate to poor deliverability Moderate acceptability	All users of the A61 traveling into the town centre.

6.5       As the table above shows, there are core elements which feature in each level of package.  Beyond those, schemes are built up to a do something/more ambitious and do maximum/very ambitious packages of measures.  Greater detail of those measures, and how they have been developed are set out in the full report.

7.0       CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES

7.1       As part of the study, market research was undertaken by a specialist consultancy to understand the propensity for people living within Harrogate and further afield to change their travel habits and use sustainable modes of travel. It also asked questions relating to current mode use and what they considered to be barriers to change.

7.2       The market research was based on understanding the habits and aspirations of a number of defined demographic groups. Having this level of detail will help in the future to target both services and promotional activities accordingly at the appropriate demographic group.

7.3       The research found that there was broadly a high level of support for park and ride, but use of such a service would be predicated on the operation of a high frequency, fast and comparatively cheap bus service.

7.4       Improvements to cycling facilities, in particular to make cycling safer and more attractive, were also supported by more than half of the survey respondents. Two thirds of those responding said that they would support reduced town centre parking and increased parking charges as an incentive to use sustainable and active modes.

7.5       In terms of both bus, park and ride, and active travel, a key message from the survey was that options need to be convenient, integrated and easy to use.

8.0       PARK AND RIDE

8.1       Park and ride is a component of the HTIP study and has been assessed alongside the other elements that have been considered, including bus priority, pedestrian and cycle facilities, and junction improvements.  For park and ride to be successful and attractive, it is recognised that improvements to facilities for buses must be made, to allow priority, so that buses have a journey time advantage over private vehicles. This is an accepted approach in planning park and ride services and is a core element of the most successful park and rides. It is for this reason that park and ride has been incorporated in this study, rather than taken forward as a standalone project, and it is important if it is progressed, that the complementary measures set out in this study are also delivered.

8.2       The potential for park and ride in Harrogate has been of public interest for many years and has been studied several times previously. The information gathered as part of these previous studies formed the background to the HTIP2 park and ride assessment.

8.3       In assessing the opportunities for park and ride in Harrogate, in this phase of study the sites considered were widened out to ensure equitable access to park and ride services across the town. Further, some sites that hadn’t been considered as part of phase 1 of the study were included in this study to ensure completeness. These sites came from suggestions from the public, elected Members and local businesses such as developers.

8.4       In total 107 possible sites were included at the outset, and then sifted, with consideration given to the following criteria:

· The geographical location of the site and its proximity to Harrogate town centre.

· The site’s proximity to nearby access corridors (i.e., A and B roads for ease of access).

· Proximity to alternative travel modes to the town centre (i.e., in some cases rail stations).

· Proximity to existing bus routes (in order to assess the likelihood of using an adapted existing bus service rather than a dedicated park and ride only bus).

· Proximity to planned housing or development sites (dependent on status in local plan/planning process).

· Deliverability of the site – various criteria including land ownership, physical constraints such as power infrastructure, water courses, landscape designations and planning status.

8.5       This resulted in 11 sites being shortlisted and taken forward for demand forecasting. This forecasting included a core scenario and then sensitivity tests of a number of relevant variables (such as increased parking charges, high bus fares, low bus fares etc).

8.6       Financial viability was assessed by comparing forecasted revenue (based on the demand forecast and suggested number of parking spaces required) with predicted operational costs. In order to assess operating costs, three scenarios were used, including a dedicated (specially contracted, park and ride-only bus) service, and adapted service (existing bus service serves the park and ride site), and a hybrid service (combination of a dedicated and adapted service).

8.7       Revenue forecasting was calculated for one, and 5 years post opening. This showed that in all cases and for all sites, a dedicated service would not be self-sustaining and would therefore not be viable without public subsidy.

8.8       The financial viability of hybrid and adapted services was as follows:

· Southern corridor (A61) - viable using adapted/existing service

· Eastern corridor and showground (A661) – viable using hybrid service (supported to increase frequency from 30 to 15 minute intervals)

· Northern corridor (A61) – viable using an adapted/existing service

· Northwest (A59/B6161) – no suitable bus service – would require full subsidy.

8.9       At a basic level, the Eastern and Showground sites were not considered financially viable under a hybrid service as the additional buses required to ensure the site could run at a 15-minute frequency means the site would operate at a bigger loss than other sites. However, there is potential for additional income during events such as the Great Yorkshire Show which could make the site viable, therefore for that reason these have remained in scope.

8.10     The sites that were considered viable were progressed to an initial design stage taking into account factors such as their topography, existing constraints on site (known utilities, power lines, watercourses etc), current and future access arrangements. From this process, 5 sites remained in scope for design, in the northern, eastern, southern and showground corridors. These are:

· Southern - Buttersyke Bar

· Southern - East of Leeds Rd, Pannal

· Northern - Ripley (northern site)

· Eastern - Close to the Kestrel PH

· Showground

8.11     The sites that have been assessed as having the greatest feasibility for delivery are set out above.  However, it must be reiterated that this is based on an operating model minimising or completely removing the need for public subsidy. Should it be considered acceptable to use public funds to support these services, this would potentially bring a number of the previously discounted sites back into consideration.

8.12     As noted above, for park and ride to be successful, it is suggested that more than one site be brought forward as part of a package. The full report sets out the details of this, but in summary, the sites that perform best could be prioritised, to offer travellers a genuine mode choice. Park and ride is included only in the do maximum option, due to the high scheme costs of delivering each site.

9.0       SCHEME DEVELOPMENT AND OPTIONEERING

9.1       Optioneering for the remaining elements of this study built on the work undertaken at stage 1 and follows DfT methodologies set out in their Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) for option development.

9.2       Initial options were sifted using a multi criteria assessment tool (MCAT) to produce a shortlist of better performing options.

9.3       At HTIP stage one, both the A59 and A61 were studied, but the better performance of sites on the A61 in the park and ride assessment, and issues around competing demands for cycle and bus infrastructure on the A59 without alternative options at the time, resulted in the A61 being prioritised for consideration in HTIP2. Relevant also in this decision was that the costs of developing and delivering a full corridor intervention would be high and therefore focusing on one corridor at a time, on a prioritised basis, would be a better approach.

9.4       The objectives and critical success factors for stage one of HTIP were revisited to check their fitness for purpose in the context of the A61 corridor. These were then used to test the long list of interventions to determine the focus for the study.

9.5       A range of interventions that could be scaled up or down was considered in the study, resulting in a number of packages, based on a do minimum/low cost, do something/medium cost, and a do maximum/high cost approach.

9.6       Junctions

Initial concept designs of the interventions were developed and were tested using a number of modelling programmes. Modelling was initially undertaken in 2023, but then re-run in 2024 when the details of the West of Harrogate transport assessment had been made available to the HTIP project team.

9.7       Junction models were created for the following junctions, based on surveys undertaken in November 2022:

· A61 / Kings Road / Crescent Road junction

· Prince of Wales roundabout

· A61 / Park Drive roundabout

· A61 / Hookstone Road junction

· A61 / Pannal Bank junction

·

9.8       The modelling was used to test the interventions using a number of different metrics, including queue length, delay time, degree of saturation (how full a lane or junction is), and practical reserve capacity (how much spare capacity the junction has). By using a number of metrics, a greater degree of confidence in the effectiveness of the option is achievable.

9.9       Designs and interventions are based on: reducing the number of movements at a junction (whilst preserving throughput on the main A61 corridor), introducing bus priority, and cycle facilities, and enhanced pedestrian facilities such as widened footways and increased opportunities for pedestrian crossings. 

9.10     In addition to the junction modelling, bus priority measures, which were considered in HTIP1, were added to designs to ensure consistency of approach and that where bus priority measures such as sections of bus lane, or bus priority signals would improve rather than compromise the design being recommended.

9.11     In each case, three levels of intervention were tested to determine the most effective option at each junction. The details of the results of these, and scheme concept drawings are set out in full in the report and its appendices.

9.12     Cycle schemes

In considering approaches for provision of cycle infrastructure, two approaches were considered, particularly in the context of the LTN1/20 cycle advice note, and also the existing Harrogate local cycling and walking improvement plan (LCWIP). These were online on-highways routes using the A61 main corridor, and then off-line adjacent routes, using side streets and quieter streets/lanes. Clearly these have different advantages and disadvantages and will be of greater or lesser appeal to different categories of cyclist with varying needs.  

9.13     Two adjacent cycle routes were considered, one using Hornbeam Park Avenue and one using Oatlands Drive and the Coach Road. Both were considered to have merit and would benefit from further discussion with local and internal stakeholders.

9.14     Measures suggested for these routes include widening, lighting, resurfacing and traffic calming for motorised vehicles. In some cases, changes to the legal designated status of the route would be required.

10.0     IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1     Value for Money and Appraisal

            Once shortlisting had been undertaken, and interventions/concept designs had been developed, a further round of assessment against the objectives was undertaken. This was to ensure that the options remained consistent with the overall aims of the project, and that they did not compromise any of the other elements that had been progressed. Estimated cost was scored in this round of appraisal, alongside estimated carbon impact, deliverability and public acceptability.  That information alongside the other objectives, allowed the interventions to be broadly ranked in terms of value for money.

10.2     The ranking as described above then lead to recommendations to be made on which elements to retain, and which to discount.  The retained elements were used to form the three packages based on the level and ambition of intervention.

11.0     RECOMMENDED OPTION PACKAGING

11.1     The assessment that has been undertaken throughout this study has resulted in three packages of interventions being developed. Those packages range from low cost and in general, site specific, targeted interventions (i.e., the intervention is a standalone improvement in that particular area, but will not bring wider benefits as part of a wider, corridor consistent approach), do minimum, to high cost and high impact with opportunity to effect a greater overall change as part of a combination of interventions (do maximum). Irrespective of which package is deemed the most favourable to be taken forward for further development, in all cases it would be appropriate to undertake stakeholder and public consultation, which might lead to a further repackaging of the ultimate preferred option.

11.2     The do minimum package comprises three elements, predominantly quick wins, and the cost is estimated at around c£1.8m.

11.3     The do something package comprises 8 elements, and the costs are estimated at around £9m.

11.4     The do maximum package is the most ambitious, and the highest cost option, but provides the greatest scope to meet the scheme objectives.  It is the only package that contains park and ride specifically within the corridor, although as the report notes to be optimal, more than one park and ride site would be desirable, subject to further assessment of site suitability.

12.0     STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1     This phase of study has aimed to filter down a long list of potential interventions, to a smaller number of deliverables packaged options, taking into account the potential cost and deliverability of each option.

12.2     From this, three packages have been developed of varying scale and cost; these options are flexible and can be adjusted to meet local need and the funding opportunities that may become available.

12.3     It is recommended in the study that next steps on this project would include stakeholder and public engagement, pre-planning discussions particularly with regards to park and ride, and further design work and development of a funder-compliant business case on the remaining preferred option.

13.0     ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

13.1     The HTIP2 study, is the latest in a long-term assessment of potential options to reduce congestion, and improve opportunities for sustainable modes of travel, in Harrogate.  Previous studies undertaken as part of this work have considered a range of transport options, which over time, and based on public engagement and government guidance, have been widened out, and then filtered down to the study noted here. This study itself offers a range of options, which as set out above, should be subject to further public and stakeholder engagement before a final preferred option is selected.

14.0     FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

14.0 There is currently no funding identified for any of the options within the HTIP report. It is suggested that as the Mayoral Combined Authority are now the Local Transport Authority for North Yorkshire and York, that future development work on this would be subject to this scheme being prioritised for further work as part of their pipeline of major schemes and funded through Local Transport Grant or similar funding streams.

15.0     LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

15.1     There are no specific legal implications arising from this report and its findings. Should any of the scheme elements progress to a further design stage, it is likely that there might be procedural legal requirements as a consequence of that.

16.0     EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

16.1     There are no specific equalities implications arising from this report and its findings. 

17.0     CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

17.1     There are no specific climate change implications arising from this report and its findings. A high level carbon assessment, whish is qualitative, has been undertaken as part of this study. Should any of the scheme elements progress to a further design stage, there would be a requirement to undertake more detailed environment and climate change assessments.

18.0     REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

18.1     It is recommended that this study is passed to the York and North Yorkshire MCA for inclusion on their major schemes pipeline. Should the scheme be prioritised by the MCA for further development, it is recommended that full public and stakeholder engagement be undertaken, to determine which options to take forward, and also determine levels of support for intervention. Further, as part of any further scheme development, a full funder (DfT or MCA) compliant business case should be developed.

19.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

19.1

It is recommended that the Corporate Director for Environment in consultation with the Executive Member for Transport: i) Note the contents of this report ii) Request the inclusion of the HTIP outputs onto the Major Schemes Pipeline iii) Note that there is no NYC funding currently identified for this and that a further report would need to come forward at the appropriate time to set out the proposed funding source if any NYC funding was required

APPENDICES: None

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: HTIP2 study report.

Karl Battersby

Corporate Director – Environment

County Hall

Northallerton

05 December 2025

Report Author – Louise Neale, Transport Planning Team Leader

Presenter of Report – Louise Neale, Transport Planning Team Leader

Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.