Concerns emerge about bridge design, cost, and consultation for Steeton Silsden proposal. Is it right for the community?
Someone asked if the design was set in stone, despite public suggestions. The council representative wouldn’t answer, blushing and staying silent. An Arup person said they were a designer, but were actually an engineer who did the design.
A safe crossing is important, and the bridge’s materials look nice. However, it costs £12.9 million and is no longer a “green bridge.” It is 360 meters long for a narrow road.
The bridge is quite wide for the traffic expected. Cyclists could use the roundabout faster, but Toucan crossings are planned close to fast traffic. These are near roundabout exits on both sides.
Did they ignore the traffic report? It showed high traffic and a 70 mph speed limit. The project focuses on “active travel” now, and not highways.
The council’s questionnaire felt flawed. Many questions used agree/disagree scales, and it was easy to select the wrong option by mistake. Only the last question was correctly printed; it asked about the event itself.
The writer felt disappointed after this, believing there must be better ways to cross. Spending £24 million seems excessive, especially since no one died crossing there.
Years ago, three options were considered: a toucan crossing, an underpass, and the bridge. The bridge money is only for “active travel,” so they dismissed the cheaper toucan crossing idea.
This is why the country is in debt. We will pay for mistakes like these later. The writer wishes these events were less political, as The Green Party was there lobbying.
Public events should be neutral spaces, in their opinion. No party should pressure people there.
The council thanked people for attending the sessions, saying the bridge addresses long-standing local requests. Its shallow slopes make it accessible for everyone, including wheelchair users.
Longer ramps are needed for ground level changes, because they must also cross the embankment and farm access. The bridge’s width allows safe passage, and the bridge is designed for youth, seniors, and the disabled.
Toucan crossings at Station and Keighley Roads improve safety on roads with lower speed limits. This is safer than crossing the fast A629. Traffic models will check crossing impact.
A bridge was preferred by most respondents in the previous consultation, and they rejected a standard crossing. The bridge disrupts A629 traffic less than a toucan crossing. Compared to an underpass, it resists floods better.
The council regrets the questionnaire error and has since corrected it.