Go Back

Calderdale Corridor Improvement Programmes: Engagement on proposed designs

Share Calderdale Corridor Improvement Programmes: Engagement on proposed designs on Facebook Share Calderdale Corridor Improvement Programmes: Engagement on proposed designs on Twitter Share Calderdale Corridor Improvement Programmes: Engagement on proposed designs on Linkedin Email Calderdale Corridor Improvement Programmes: Engagement on proposed designs link

The CCIPs

Calderdale Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority are developing a series of improvements to the road network along the A58 / A672 from Junction 22 of the M62 to King Cross in Halifax and the A646 / A6033 from Todmorden to Skircoat Moor.


These Corridor Improvement Programmes (CIPs) aim to provide better connections across West Yorkshire to stimulate economic growth and job creation, and support housing developments throughout the region. They should improve traffic flow, aiming to deliver an 8% reduction in journey times for all traffic and a 12% reduction in journey times for buses. They would aim to reduce accidents throughout the schemes by 10% by 2022, particularly involving pedestrians and cyclists.


The two programmes cover well used routes through Calderdale which can be congested during peak times, suffer from pockets of poor air quality and limit the potential for economic growth because of variable journey times. The schemes also encourage active travel by improving facilities for walkers and cyclists

To help you understand the schemes, a series of plans and designs can be found using the 'documents, plans and proposals' section of this page.

Engagement

Between 13 August and 27 September 2018, an initial period of engagement took place where the public and other interested parties were asked for their comments on the Calderdale CIPs proposals. Following this, your feedback was analysed and the plans were developed further. You can click on the see some of the changes we've made by viewing our 'You Said, We Did' document by clicking here.

Between the 2 January and the 14 February a second period of engagement took place on the updated plans. This gave you, as road users or local residents, another opportunity to tell us what you thought before we submit our Final Business Case.

This engagement has now closed and your feedback has been analysed. The final report and a 'You Said, We Did' outlining some of the changes that have been made to the proposals as a result of the engagement can be found using the link below:

The CCIPs

Calderdale Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority are developing a series of improvements to the road network along the A58 / A672 from Junction 22 of the M62 to King Cross in Halifax and the A646 / A6033 from Todmorden to Skircoat Moor.


These Corridor Improvement Programmes (CIPs) aim to provide better connections across West Yorkshire to stimulate economic growth and job creation, and support housing developments throughout the region. They should improve traffic flow, aiming to deliver an 8% reduction in journey times for all traffic and a 12% reduction in journey times for buses. They would aim to reduce accidents throughout the schemes by 10% by 2022, particularly involving pedestrians and cyclists.


The two programmes cover well used routes through Calderdale which can be congested during peak times, suffer from pockets of poor air quality and limit the potential for economic growth because of variable journey times. The schemes also encourage active travel by improving facilities for walkers and cyclists

To help you understand the schemes, a series of plans and designs can be found using the 'documents, plans and proposals' section of this page.

Engagement

Between 13 August and 27 September 2018, an initial period of engagement took place where the public and other interested parties were asked for their comments on the Calderdale CIPs proposals. Following this, your feedback was analysed and the plans were developed further. You can click on the see some of the changes we've made by viewing our 'You Said, We Did' document by clicking here.

Between the 2 January and the 14 February a second period of engagement took place on the updated plans. This gave you, as road users or local residents, another opportunity to tell us what you thought before we submit our Final Business Case.

This engagement has now closed and your feedback has been analysed. The final report and a 'You Said, We Did' outlining some of the changes that have been made to the proposals as a result of the engagement can be found using the link below:

CLOSED: This Q&A is no longer open for new questions. Any outstanding queries will receive answers as soon as possible. If you wish to contact the CCIP project team please email yourvoice@westyorks-ca.gov.uk

Do you have any questions for us? Ask them here!

  • Share I'm not sure how you can improve the air ,when the traffic has increased through sowerby bridge, Surely more heavy traffic more fumes in the air we are breathing, on Facebook Share I'm not sure how you can improve the air ,when the traffic has increased through sowerby bridge, Surely more heavy traffic more fumes in the air we are breathing, on Twitter Share I'm not sure how you can improve the air ,when the traffic has increased through sowerby bridge, Surely more heavy traffic more fumes in the air we are breathing, on Linkedin Email I'm not sure how you can improve the air ,when the traffic has increased through sowerby bridge, Surely more heavy traffic more fumes in the air we are breathing, link

    I'm not sure how you can improve the air ,when the traffic has increased through sowerby bridge, Surely more heavy traffic more fumes in the air we are breathing,

    Geoff asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comments. As you correctly point out, research shows that creating additional highway capacity for cars and other vehicles induces demand. For this reason, Calderdale MBC is focusing on sustainable transport provision over providing for the car. This is why we are not building any new roads but focusing on reallocation of the road space for active modes (includes public transport). Please see www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/residents/transport-and-streets/transport-improvements-and-initiatives/transport-strategy for more information. The exception to this is the A629 programme the approval of which pre-dates this strategy.

    The fund criteria and scheme appraisal process as set out by the treasury require us to improve journey time reliability for all modes. Our focus has been on improving this for buses - with all vehicles benefiting. This naturally benefits other vehicles. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as we have very polluted areas in the Borough and this can be improved by reducing stop-start movement.

    CMBC has declared a climate change emergency and we are doing our level best to work within these funding constraints and deliver for active modes. This criteria is being reviewed and we hope to be able to prioritise sustainable modes more easily in the future.

    Hope this helps explain the decision-making in a complex context where we could otherwise have a very long discussion.
  • Share Why do you continually attempt to increase traffic flow in order to improve things when all this does is increase the overall volume of traffic? Why not focus on getting people out of vehicles and restrict vehicle access more whilst focusing on cycling, walking and public transport? on Facebook Share Why do you continually attempt to increase traffic flow in order to improve things when all this does is increase the overall volume of traffic? Why not focus on getting people out of vehicles and restrict vehicle access more whilst focusing on cycling, walking and public transport? on Twitter Share Why do you continually attempt to increase traffic flow in order to improve things when all this does is increase the overall volume of traffic? Why not focus on getting people out of vehicles and restrict vehicle access more whilst focusing on cycling, walking and public transport? on Linkedin Email Why do you continually attempt to increase traffic flow in order to improve things when all this does is increase the overall volume of traffic? Why not focus on getting people out of vehicles and restrict vehicle access more whilst focusing on cycling, walking and public transport? link

    Why do you continually attempt to increase traffic flow in order to improve things when all this does is increase the overall volume of traffic? Why not focus on getting people out of vehicles and restrict vehicle access more whilst focusing on cycling, walking and public transport?

    Dave R asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comments. As you correctly point out, research shows that creating additional highway capacity for cars and other vehicles induces demand. For this reason, Calderdale MBC is focusing on sustainable transport provision over providing for the car. This is why we are not building any new roads but focusing on reallocation of the road space for active modes (includes public transport). Please see www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/residents/transport-and-streets/transport-improvements-and-initiatives/transport-strategy for more information. The exception to this is the A629 programme the approval of which pre-dates this strategy.

    The fund criteria and scheme appraisal process as set out by the treasury require us to improve journey time reliability for all modes. Our focus has been on improving this for buses - with all vehicles benefiting. This naturally benefits other vehicles. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as we have very polluted areas in the Borough and this can be improved by reducing stop-start movement.

    CMBC has declared a climate change emergency and we are doing our level best to work within these funding constraints and deliver for active modes. This criteria is being reviewed and we hope to be able to prioritise sustainable modes more easily in the future.

    Hope this helps explain the decision-making in a complex context where we could otherwise have a very long discussion.
  • Share I understand the funding criteria limit the scope of this project in terms of delivering improved infrastructure for active travel. Given the climate emergency declared surely this level of spending without a focus on boosting the most environmentally beneficial modes of transport is irresponsible. Has induced demand been considered at all? If traffic flow is improved more people will drive, on the other hand if traffic is removed by the facilitation of active travel by providing quality, continuous, segregated infrastructure (Painted bike lanes are not enough!) there will be real and lasting reductions in traffic and the associated air quality and congestion issues. on Facebook Share I understand the funding criteria limit the scope of this project in terms of delivering improved infrastructure for active travel. Given the climate emergency declared surely this level of spending without a focus on boosting the most environmentally beneficial modes of transport is irresponsible. Has induced demand been considered at all? If traffic flow is improved more people will drive, on the other hand if traffic is removed by the facilitation of active travel by providing quality, continuous, segregated infrastructure (Painted bike lanes are not enough!) there will be real and lasting reductions in traffic and the associated air quality and congestion issues. on Twitter Share I understand the funding criteria limit the scope of this project in terms of delivering improved infrastructure for active travel. Given the climate emergency declared surely this level of spending without a focus on boosting the most environmentally beneficial modes of transport is irresponsible. Has induced demand been considered at all? If traffic flow is improved more people will drive, on the other hand if traffic is removed by the facilitation of active travel by providing quality, continuous, segregated infrastructure (Painted bike lanes are not enough!) there will be real and lasting reductions in traffic and the associated air quality and congestion issues. on Linkedin Email I understand the funding criteria limit the scope of this project in terms of delivering improved infrastructure for active travel. Given the climate emergency declared surely this level of spending without a focus on boosting the most environmentally beneficial modes of transport is irresponsible. Has induced demand been considered at all? If traffic flow is improved more people will drive, on the other hand if traffic is removed by the facilitation of active travel by providing quality, continuous, segregated infrastructure (Painted bike lanes are not enough!) there will be real and lasting reductions in traffic and the associated air quality and congestion issues. link

    I understand the funding criteria limit the scope of this project in terms of delivering improved infrastructure for active travel. Given the climate emergency declared surely this level of spending without a focus on boosting the most environmentally beneficial modes of transport is irresponsible. Has induced demand been considered at all? If traffic flow is improved more people will drive, on the other hand if traffic is removed by the facilitation of active travel by providing quality, continuous, segregated infrastructure (Painted bike lanes are not enough!) there will be real and lasting reductions in traffic and the associated air quality and congestion issues.

    ChrisK asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comments. As you correctly point out, research shows that creating additional highway capacity for cars and other vehicles induces demand. For this reason, Calderdale MBC is focusing on sustainable transport provision over providing for the car. This is why we are not building any new roads but focusing on reallocation of the road space for active modes (includes public transport). Please see www.calderdale.gov.uk/v2/residents/transport-and-streets/transport-improvements-and-initiatives/transport-strategy for more information. The exception to this is the A629 programme the approval of which pre-dates this strategy. 

    The fund criteria and scheme appraisal process as set out by the treasury require us to improve journey time reliability for all modes. Our focus has been on improving this for buses - with all vehicles benefiting. This naturally benefits other vehicles. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as we have very polluted areas in the Borough and this can be improved by reducing stop-start movement. 

    CMBC has declared a climate change emergency and we are doing our level best to work within these funding constraints and deliver for active modes. This criteria is being reviewed and we hope to be able to prioritise sustainable modes more easily in the future. 

    Hope this helps explain the decision-making in a complex context where we could otherwise have a very long discussion.
  • Share Re hebden bridge centre plans: How will the children from riverside & Stubbings schools now safely cross the road? Why would you want to introduce big heavy traffic into the town centre where there are lots of pedestrians? Why reduce packing spaces which will impact on the economy of local businesses? What about when there are problems on local motorways & huge lorries use as a diversion. on Facebook Share Re hebden bridge centre plans: How will the children from riverside & Stubbings schools now safely cross the road? Why would you want to introduce big heavy traffic into the town centre where there are lots of pedestrians? Why reduce packing spaces which will impact on the economy of local businesses? What about when there are problems on local motorways & huge lorries use as a diversion. on Twitter Share Re hebden bridge centre plans: How will the children from riverside & Stubbings schools now safely cross the road? Why would you want to introduce big heavy traffic into the town centre where there are lots of pedestrians? Why reduce packing spaces which will impact on the economy of local businesses? What about when there are problems on local motorways & huge lorries use as a diversion. on Linkedin Email Re hebden bridge centre plans: How will the children from riverside & Stubbings schools now safely cross the road? Why would you want to introduce big heavy traffic into the town centre where there are lots of pedestrians? Why reduce packing spaces which will impact on the economy of local businesses? What about when there are problems on local motorways & huge lorries use as a diversion. link

    Re hebden bridge centre plans: How will the children from riverside & Stubbings schools now safely cross the road? Why would you want to introduce big heavy traffic into the town centre where there are lots of pedestrians? Why reduce packing spaces which will impact on the economy of local businesses? What about when there are problems on local motorways & huge lorries use as a diversion.

    Sarah myers asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comments. The proposals do not involve removing crossings near the schools and seek to improve the pedestrian environment. We are trying to discourage car use by restricting parking in certain areas thereby improving pedestrian sight lines, providing safer cycling provision, reducing delays to buses and improving the air quality. It is unsafe for cars to park on a busy highway. Hebden Bridge is very well connected by public transport and for walking and cycling and we are doubling the size of the rail station car park. The speed limit will remain at 20mph on Market Street and businesses will still be able to load / unload.
  • Share Hello. Are you still determined to end the roadside parking outside Hebden in the direction of Mytholmroyd, as well as the few designated spaces on the road in the town centre? If so, please register my strong objection. Those parking spaces are essential to local people, when they need to come to town by car because they need to buy something that is too heavy, or unsuitable, for carrying on buses. Just outside the town centre the road is wide enough for a lane of parked cars plus two-way traffic. There is no good reason for interfering with it. There is perhaps more of an argument for the elimination of the on-road parking right in the centre, but as the speed limit is 20 mph, cars have to move slowly anyway, and the parking enables people to do quick local shopping. Haven't local customers and businesses had enough misery with the traffic jams in Mytholmroyd without your making using Hebden difficult as well? You will be driving local people to go to supermarkets and trading malls as the easier option. That will destroy Hebden Bridge's town centre businesses, and there goes the tourism as well. Your plans will perhaps make it easier for people to drive through Hebden Bridge, but that is all they will be doing. Please think again. Keep the on-road parking near the station, offer alternative free one-hour parking near the shops if you're going to remove the spaces currently available - & please don't make it difficult to go up the Keighley Road from the Halifax direction. It's simple & safe to turn to the right at present. Doing it from Hebden will mean either pulling out into a busy road where you can't see properly, or using the current main turning but having to make a hairpin turn. Thank you. I hope this "consultation" means that you will genuinely reconsider if the local population is opposed to these plans.They will affect the quality of everyday life here in a very negative way. on Facebook Share Hello. Are you still determined to end the roadside parking outside Hebden in the direction of Mytholmroyd, as well as the few designated spaces on the road in the town centre? If so, please register my strong objection. Those parking spaces are essential to local people, when they need to come to town by car because they need to buy something that is too heavy, or unsuitable, for carrying on buses. Just outside the town centre the road is wide enough for a lane of parked cars plus two-way traffic. There is no good reason for interfering with it. There is perhaps more of an argument for the elimination of the on-road parking right in the centre, but as the speed limit is 20 mph, cars have to move slowly anyway, and the parking enables people to do quick local shopping. Haven't local customers and businesses had enough misery with the traffic jams in Mytholmroyd without your making using Hebden difficult as well? You will be driving local people to go to supermarkets and trading malls as the easier option. That will destroy Hebden Bridge's town centre businesses, and there goes the tourism as well. Your plans will perhaps make it easier for people to drive through Hebden Bridge, but that is all they will be doing. Please think again. Keep the on-road parking near the station, offer alternative free one-hour parking near the shops if you're going to remove the spaces currently available - & please don't make it difficult to go up the Keighley Road from the Halifax direction. It's simple & safe to turn to the right at present. Doing it from Hebden will mean either pulling out into a busy road where you can't see properly, or using the current main turning but having to make a hairpin turn. Thank you. I hope this "consultation" means that you will genuinely reconsider if the local population is opposed to these plans.They will affect the quality of everyday life here in a very negative way. on Twitter Share Hello. Are you still determined to end the roadside parking outside Hebden in the direction of Mytholmroyd, as well as the few designated spaces on the road in the town centre? If so, please register my strong objection. Those parking spaces are essential to local people, when they need to come to town by car because they need to buy something that is too heavy, or unsuitable, for carrying on buses. Just outside the town centre the road is wide enough for a lane of parked cars plus two-way traffic. There is no good reason for interfering with it. There is perhaps more of an argument for the elimination of the on-road parking right in the centre, but as the speed limit is 20 mph, cars have to move slowly anyway, and the parking enables people to do quick local shopping. Haven't local customers and businesses had enough misery with the traffic jams in Mytholmroyd without your making using Hebden difficult as well? You will be driving local people to go to supermarkets and trading malls as the easier option. That will destroy Hebden Bridge's town centre businesses, and there goes the tourism as well. Your plans will perhaps make it easier for people to drive through Hebden Bridge, but that is all they will be doing. Please think again. Keep the on-road parking near the station, offer alternative free one-hour parking near the shops if you're going to remove the spaces currently available - & please don't make it difficult to go up the Keighley Road from the Halifax direction. It's simple & safe to turn to the right at present. Doing it from Hebden will mean either pulling out into a busy road where you can't see properly, or using the current main turning but having to make a hairpin turn. Thank you. I hope this "consultation" means that you will genuinely reconsider if the local population is opposed to these plans.They will affect the quality of everyday life here in a very negative way. on Linkedin Email Hello. Are you still determined to end the roadside parking outside Hebden in the direction of Mytholmroyd, as well as the few designated spaces on the road in the town centre? If so, please register my strong objection. Those parking spaces are essential to local people, when they need to come to town by car because they need to buy something that is too heavy, or unsuitable, for carrying on buses. Just outside the town centre the road is wide enough for a lane of parked cars plus two-way traffic. There is no good reason for interfering with it. There is perhaps more of an argument for the elimination of the on-road parking right in the centre, but as the speed limit is 20 mph, cars have to move slowly anyway, and the parking enables people to do quick local shopping. Haven't local customers and businesses had enough misery with the traffic jams in Mytholmroyd without your making using Hebden difficult as well? You will be driving local people to go to supermarkets and trading malls as the easier option. That will destroy Hebden Bridge's town centre businesses, and there goes the tourism as well. Your plans will perhaps make it easier for people to drive through Hebden Bridge, but that is all they will be doing. Please think again. Keep the on-road parking near the station, offer alternative free one-hour parking near the shops if you're going to remove the spaces currently available - & please don't make it difficult to go up the Keighley Road from the Halifax direction. It's simple & safe to turn to the right at present. Doing it from Hebden will mean either pulling out into a busy road where you can't see properly, or using the current main turning but having to make a hairpin turn. Thank you. I hope this "consultation" means that you will genuinely reconsider if the local population is opposed to these plans.They will affect the quality of everyday life here in a very negative way. link

    Hello. Are you still determined to end the roadside parking outside Hebden in the direction of Mytholmroyd, as well as the few designated spaces on the road in the town centre? If so, please register my strong objection. Those parking spaces are essential to local people, when they need to come to town by car because they need to buy something that is too heavy, or unsuitable, for carrying on buses. Just outside the town centre the road is wide enough for a lane of parked cars plus two-way traffic. There is no good reason for interfering with it. There is perhaps more of an argument for the elimination of the on-road parking right in the centre, but as the speed limit is 20 mph, cars have to move slowly anyway, and the parking enables people to do quick local shopping. Haven't local customers and businesses had enough misery with the traffic jams in Mytholmroyd without your making using Hebden difficult as well? You will be driving local people to go to supermarkets and trading malls as the easier option. That will destroy Hebden Bridge's town centre businesses, and there goes the tourism as well. Your plans will perhaps make it easier for people to drive through Hebden Bridge, but that is all they will be doing. Please think again. Keep the on-road parking near the station, offer alternative free one-hour parking near the shops if you're going to remove the spaces currently available - & please don't make it difficult to go up the Keighley Road from the Halifax direction. It's simple & safe to turn to the right at present. Doing it from Hebden will mean either pulling out into a busy road where you can't see properly, or using the current main turning but having to make a hairpin turn. Thank you. I hope this "consultation" means that you will genuinely reconsider if the local population is opposed to these plans.They will affect the quality of everyday life here in a very negative way.

    Vivienne asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comment. The said section of Burnley Road is generally occupied by 60 to 80 vehicles on a daily basis, and 8 to 12 vehicles overnight. It is understood that a wide range of users park at this location, including commuters, canal residents, workers and visitors to Hebden Bridge. the car park at Hebden Bridge station is due to be increased by over 40 spaces, while the proposed car park at Stubbing Holme Road would have a capacity of over 60 spaces. The project team recognise the importance of facilitating a modal shift towards public and sustainable transport, and have endeavoured to do so within the scope of funding. ; be it in improving the quality of public realm for pedestrians, improving cycling infrastructure, improving access to railway stations and improving journey times and reliability for vehicles including buses. As for the parking spaces on Market Street, these are proposed to be converted to restricted loading bays, which would provide a more balanced solution to the constraints within the area. A number of comments have been received in relation to the proposed changes on Commercial Street, and as such the project team will review this proposal in its entirety. While modelling has been carried out to confirm said movements, if the proposals are progressed to detailed design, these will undergo further analysis and testing before any potential implementation. The project team will review all comments received and endeavour to address the concerns as they progress to detailed design.
  • Share Have you asked the Fire Service how they plan to access Birchcliffe with a large fire tender if Commercial Street becomes one way? Is it really considered acceptable to force every large vehicle to carry out reversing manoeuvres outside the entrance to Stubbings Primary School? If commuters will no longer be able to park on Burnley Road they will start parking in Hebden's residential streets which will inevitably lead to the introduction of costly residential parking permits. You see us as a route but we are a community. on Facebook Share Have you asked the Fire Service how they plan to access Birchcliffe with a large fire tender if Commercial Street becomes one way? Is it really considered acceptable to force every large vehicle to carry out reversing manoeuvres outside the entrance to Stubbings Primary School? If commuters will no longer be able to park on Burnley Road they will start parking in Hebden's residential streets which will inevitably lead to the introduction of costly residential parking permits. You see us as a route but we are a community. on Twitter Share Have you asked the Fire Service how they plan to access Birchcliffe with a large fire tender if Commercial Street becomes one way? Is it really considered acceptable to force every large vehicle to carry out reversing manoeuvres outside the entrance to Stubbings Primary School? If commuters will no longer be able to park on Burnley Road they will start parking in Hebden's residential streets which will inevitably lead to the introduction of costly residential parking permits. You see us as a route but we are a community. on Linkedin Email Have you asked the Fire Service how they plan to access Birchcliffe with a large fire tender if Commercial Street becomes one way? Is it really considered acceptable to force every large vehicle to carry out reversing manoeuvres outside the entrance to Stubbings Primary School? If commuters will no longer be able to park on Burnley Road they will start parking in Hebden's residential streets which will inevitably lead to the introduction of costly residential parking permits. You see us as a route but we are a community. link

    Have you asked the Fire Service how they plan to access Birchcliffe with a large fire tender if Commercial Street becomes one way? Is it really considered acceptable to force every large vehicle to carry out reversing manoeuvres outside the entrance to Stubbings Primary School? If commuters will no longer be able to park on Burnley Road they will start parking in Hebden's residential streets which will inevitably lead to the introduction of costly residential parking permits. You see us as a route but we are a community.

    PaulGrundy asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comments. A number of comments have been received in relation to the proposed changes on Commercial Street, and as such the project team will review this proposal in its entirety. While modelling has been carried out to confirm said movements, if the proposals are progressed to detailed design, these will undergo further analysis and testing before any potential implementation. As for the parking on the said section of Burnley Road; it is generally occupied by 60 to 80 vehicles on a daily basis, and 8 to 12 vehicles overnight. It is understood that a wide range of users park at this location, including commuters, canal residents, workers and visitors to Hebden Bridge. the car park at Hebden Bridge station is due to be increased by over 40 spaces, while the proposed car park at Stubbing Holme Road would have a capacity of over 60 spaces. The project team will review all comments received and endeavour to address the concerns as they progress to detailed design.
  • Share There are many commuters who use the train station at Hebden and often have to resort to parking on Burnley Road as the car parks are full even by 7.30am. If Burnley Road is going to have double-yellow lines near the train station - where is everyone going to park? From what I could see in the plans, there is not sufficient provision for parking. My concern is a lack of parking combined with the already shambolic rail service will drive more people to travel by car - or to push the problem elsewhere. Although parking on Burnley Road is far from ideal, if it's not available, it's going to have an adverse effect on both rail users and visitors to the town. on Facebook Share There are many commuters who use the train station at Hebden and often have to resort to parking on Burnley Road as the car parks are full even by 7.30am. If Burnley Road is going to have double-yellow lines near the train station - where is everyone going to park? From what I could see in the plans, there is not sufficient provision for parking. My concern is a lack of parking combined with the already shambolic rail service will drive more people to travel by car - or to push the problem elsewhere. Although parking on Burnley Road is far from ideal, if it's not available, it's going to have an adverse effect on both rail users and visitors to the town. on Twitter Share There are many commuters who use the train station at Hebden and often have to resort to parking on Burnley Road as the car parks are full even by 7.30am. If Burnley Road is going to have double-yellow lines near the train station - where is everyone going to park? From what I could see in the plans, there is not sufficient provision for parking. My concern is a lack of parking combined with the already shambolic rail service will drive more people to travel by car - or to push the problem elsewhere. Although parking on Burnley Road is far from ideal, if it's not available, it's going to have an adverse effect on both rail users and visitors to the town. on Linkedin Email There are many commuters who use the train station at Hebden and often have to resort to parking on Burnley Road as the car parks are full even by 7.30am. If Burnley Road is going to have double-yellow lines near the train station - where is everyone going to park? From what I could see in the plans, there is not sufficient provision for parking. My concern is a lack of parking combined with the already shambolic rail service will drive more people to travel by car - or to push the problem elsewhere. Although parking on Burnley Road is far from ideal, if it's not available, it's going to have an adverse effect on both rail users and visitors to the town. link

    There are many commuters who use the train station at Hebden and often have to resort to parking on Burnley Road as the car parks are full even by 7.30am. If Burnley Road is going to have double-yellow lines near the train station - where is everyone going to park? From what I could see in the plans, there is not sufficient provision for parking. My concern is a lack of parking combined with the already shambolic rail service will drive more people to travel by car - or to push the problem elsewhere. Although parking on Burnley Road is far from ideal, if it's not available, it's going to have an adverse effect on both rail users and visitors to the town.

    asked almost 5 years ago
    Thank you for your comment. The said section of Burnley Road is generally occupied by 60 to 80 vehicles on a daily basis, and 8 to 12 vehicles overnight. It is understood that a wide range of users park at this location, including commuters, canal residents, workers and visitors to Hebden Bridge. The car park at Hebden Bridge station is due to be increased by over 40 spaces, while the proposed car park at Stubbing Holme Road would have a capacity of over 60 spaces. The project team recognise the importance of facilitating a modal shift towards public and sustainable transport, and have endeavoured to do so within the scope of funding, be it in improving the quality of public realm for pedestrians, improving cycling infrastructure, improving access to railway stations and improving journey times and reliability for vehicles including buses. We will continue to review the scheme proposals in light of the comments received.
  • Share Why is a road as big as Wakefield road sowerby bridge,That leads to the m62 and is now quiet because all the heavy traffic is directed to the a58 up to kings cross passed parks and kids walking to school, on Facebook Share Why is a road as big as Wakefield road sowerby bridge,That leads to the m62 and is now quiet because all the heavy traffic is directed to the a58 up to kings cross passed parks and kids walking to school, on Twitter Share Why is a road as big as Wakefield road sowerby bridge,That leads to the m62 and is now quiet because all the heavy traffic is directed to the a58 up to kings cross passed parks and kids walking to school, on Linkedin Email Why is a road as big as Wakefield road sowerby bridge,That leads to the m62 and is now quiet because all the heavy traffic is directed to the a58 up to kings cross passed parks and kids walking to school, link

    Why is a road as big as Wakefield road sowerby bridge,That leads to the m62 and is now quiet because all the heavy traffic is directed to the a58 up to kings cross passed parks and kids walking to school,

    Geoff asked almost 5 years ago
    The A6026 Wakefield Road is outside the scope of the Corridor scheme which is focused on the A58. Whilst the A6026 is wide in places it narrows significantly through Copley village and onwards to its junction with the A629. It also carries a height restriction due to the railway overbridges. The A58 is a former trunk road and between Sowerby Bridge and King Cross is more suited to taking HGV traffic.
  • Share What about Triangle,glaring by it,s ommission,there are issues with speed ,road width,local Primary school,parking,signage! on Facebook Share What about Triangle,glaring by it,s ommission,there are issues with speed ,road width,local Primary school,parking,signage! on Twitter Share What about Triangle,glaring by it,s ommission,there are issues with speed ,road width,local Primary school,parking,signage! on Linkedin Email What about Triangle,glaring by it,s ommission,there are issues with speed ,road width,local Primary school,parking,signage! link

    What about Triangle,glaring by it,s ommission,there are issues with speed ,road width,local Primary school,parking,signage!

    Phil asked almost 5 years ago
    With specific reference to Triangle, the Council is aware of a number of issues related to traffic speeds, junction protection and inappropriate parking, crossing facilities and the general highway environment. These require a small in-depth study before any changes are made. Rather than trying to rush through a scheme to the very tight schedule that the Corridor scheme is working to the Council has chosen to include it within its own Local Transport Plan Safer Roads programme for 2020/21.
  • Share Hello. Your publicity on the Calderdale council fb page says that you “want to close the gaps in walking and cycling network to reduce car use along Calderdale’s A58/ A672 and A646/A6033” Please can you say whether your objective is an absolute reduction in car use (rather than e.g. simply a reduction in increases in traffic)? If so, does your assessment show that the proposed scheme will lead to an absolute reduction. On the point about closing the gaps in walking and cycling network: you will know that the A646 between Hebden and Tod does not have a continuous safe route for pedestrians. In places pedestrians are forced to cross the road without crossings due to footway giving out completely on one side, and in other places the footway has steps which are inaccessible to anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair or difficulty walking. The canal towpath upgrade is very welcome (or will be when it is done – and some information on that would be welcome) but it is also not accessible to all, so the main road route is needed. Please could you confirm how the corridor improvement will address these accessibility and safety problems for pedestrians on the A646. If the scheme does not address this, please can you confirm how it will be addressed? Many thanks on Facebook Share Hello. Your publicity on the Calderdale council fb page says that you “want to close the gaps in walking and cycling network to reduce car use along Calderdale’s A58/ A672 and A646/A6033” Please can you say whether your objective is an absolute reduction in car use (rather than e.g. simply a reduction in increases in traffic)? If so, does your assessment show that the proposed scheme will lead to an absolute reduction. On the point about closing the gaps in walking and cycling network: you will know that the A646 between Hebden and Tod does not have a continuous safe route for pedestrians. In places pedestrians are forced to cross the road without crossings due to footway giving out completely on one side, and in other places the footway has steps which are inaccessible to anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair or difficulty walking. The canal towpath upgrade is very welcome (or will be when it is done – and some information on that would be welcome) but it is also not accessible to all, so the main road route is needed. Please could you confirm how the corridor improvement will address these accessibility and safety problems for pedestrians on the A646. If the scheme does not address this, please can you confirm how it will be addressed? Many thanks on Twitter Share Hello. Your publicity on the Calderdale council fb page says that you “want to close the gaps in walking and cycling network to reduce car use along Calderdale’s A58/ A672 and A646/A6033” Please can you say whether your objective is an absolute reduction in car use (rather than e.g. simply a reduction in increases in traffic)? If so, does your assessment show that the proposed scheme will lead to an absolute reduction. On the point about closing the gaps in walking and cycling network: you will know that the A646 between Hebden and Tod does not have a continuous safe route for pedestrians. In places pedestrians are forced to cross the road without crossings due to footway giving out completely on one side, and in other places the footway has steps which are inaccessible to anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair or difficulty walking. The canal towpath upgrade is very welcome (or will be when it is done – and some information on that would be welcome) but it is also not accessible to all, so the main road route is needed. Please could you confirm how the corridor improvement will address these accessibility and safety problems for pedestrians on the A646. If the scheme does not address this, please can you confirm how it will be addressed? Many thanks on Linkedin Email Hello. Your publicity on the Calderdale council fb page says that you “want to close the gaps in walking and cycling network to reduce car use along Calderdale’s A58/ A672 and A646/A6033” Please can you say whether your objective is an absolute reduction in car use (rather than e.g. simply a reduction in increases in traffic)? If so, does your assessment show that the proposed scheme will lead to an absolute reduction. On the point about closing the gaps in walking and cycling network: you will know that the A646 between Hebden and Tod does not have a continuous safe route for pedestrians. In places pedestrians are forced to cross the road without crossings due to footway giving out completely on one side, and in other places the footway has steps which are inaccessible to anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair or difficulty walking. The canal towpath upgrade is very welcome (or will be when it is done – and some information on that would be welcome) but it is also not accessible to all, so the main road route is needed. Please could you confirm how the corridor improvement will address these accessibility and safety problems for pedestrians on the A646. If the scheme does not address this, please can you confirm how it will be addressed? Many thanks link

    Hello. Your publicity on the Calderdale council fb page says that you “want to close the gaps in walking and cycling network to reduce car use along Calderdale’s A58/ A672 and A646/A6033” Please can you say whether your objective is an absolute reduction in car use (rather than e.g. simply a reduction in increases in traffic)? If so, does your assessment show that the proposed scheme will lead to an absolute reduction. On the point about closing the gaps in walking and cycling network: you will know that the A646 between Hebden and Tod does not have a continuous safe route for pedestrians. In places pedestrians are forced to cross the road without crossings due to footway giving out completely on one side, and in other places the footway has steps which are inaccessible to anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair or difficulty walking. The canal towpath upgrade is very welcome (or will be when it is done – and some information on that would be welcome) but it is also not accessible to all, so the main road route is needed. Please could you confirm how the corridor improvement will address these accessibility and safety problems for pedestrians on the A646. If the scheme does not address this, please can you confirm how it will be addressed? Many thanks

    5parling PEACH asked almost 5 years ago
    In terms of closing gaps in the walking and cycling network the Corridor schemes are particularly focused on issues along the canal corridor that the current CityConnect scheme has not been able to address, principally through the centre of Sowerby Bridge and in regard to the ‘weirs’ along the Rochdale Canal towpath. The aim is to increase the proportion of people choosing to walk and cycle and contributing to the Calderdale Transport Strategy target of ‘no net growth in car trips by 2026’.

    The scheme aims to improve the pedestrian environment within town and village centres such as Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge, and at specific pinch points such as King Cross junction. However it will not look to provide a continuous walking route along the whole of the road corridor. Any requests for specific crossing points or pedestrian improvements should be directed to Calderdale Highways on 01422 288002 or email highways&engineering@calderdale.gov.uk and they will be assessed through the Council’s Local Transport Plan programme.
Page last updated: 26 Jun 2020, 12:38 PM