A few months ago Highways carried out pedestrian crossing surveys on Leeds Road. Set out below is the narrative supplied by Highways. If you would like a copy of the survey results please email me at

The pedestrian crossing assessment has scored ‘4’. Under our scoring criteria this means that whilst it has not scored highly enough to be automatically considered as part of next year’s pedestrian crossing review, nor has it scored low enough to be dismissed. 

“The conclusion reached in the pedestrian crossing assessment is as follows:

 “A660 is a significantly busy route that residents report effectively creates two separate parts of Bramhope, with residents in the northern area driving to get to amenities in the southern section as crossing can feel dangerous, even at the existing refuge points. 

The particular crossing location is close to the bend by Church Hill, so forward visibility to the north-west is impacted for residents, particularly for those crossing from the North side. Traffic tends to arrive in waves from the north-west, dictated by the flow from the Dyneley Arms Junction. Traffic from the south-east is a more constant flow, not as a bulk flow released from the traffic signals. 

It is felt that the provision of a formal signalised crossing would introduce additional delays to traffic on the A660 when called and there are also forward visibility concerns of a red signal which would result in the need to site the crossing a relatively significant distance away from the bend and therefore also the desire line. Improvements to the refuges through increased width and better approach footways could result in a safer experience for pedestrians, in the vicinity of the desire line. A wider refuge would also have the effect of narrowing the carriageway, which is shown to have a positive impact on reducing vehicle speeds.” 

The conclusion aligns with our long-standing view on the existing refuge facilities on the A660, in that these should be improved. We do not support a formal signal crossing on the A660 at the current time, due both to a lack of supporting data for the cost of such a provision, as well as the delays that would be incurred along the route.  

The scheme will be placed on our Pedestrian Crossing Review, with every scheme re-reviewed and ranked early into the new calendar year.”