Agenda item

A61 Chesterfield Road Scheme- update and Q&A

Update from Mark Gibbons, Senior Transport Planner, Sheffield City Council



A presentation regarding the proposed scheme on the A61 Chesterfield Road, to improve public transport and road safety by giving buses priority, was delivered by Mark Gibbons, Senior Transport Planner, Sheffield City Council and Neal Byers, Consultant.  The presentation, which was subsequently published on the Council’s website, outlined the background to the project, its current status, the delivery themes and the next steps.



The following information was provided by Mark Gibbons and Neal Byers in response to questions from members of the public:-

  • Comments made in previous consultations by shopkeepers along the route, including views on any potential loss of trade had been taken into consideration and they would be consulted again later in the scheme.
  • Some parking provision might change but there were no plans to reduce overall provision.
  • Provision of accessible parking spaces would be considered in the detailed design stage.
  • Officers were aware of the previous scheme which had taken place near St Thomas’s Church.
  • The issue of traffic displacement was being evaluated via traffic modelling.  If it was found that there was likely to be a negative effect, this would be manged/ mitigated as the aim of the project was to encourage bus use and enable buses to run on time.
  • No short term fluctuation in the level of bus fares was anticipated but the providers set their own rates (which could be capped by the Council). 
  • The governance arrangements for buses were being reviewed and any resulting changes, would be more likely to have an effect on fares than any aspect of the A61 scheme, which should assist operators with regards to affordability.
  • Cycling infrastructure would potentially be improved by the extension of the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route, which was thought to be preferable to mixing bicycles with buses.
  • Consideration was being given to whether there were opportunities to improve cycling infrastructure along the A61.
  • The budget was insufficient to address traffic “necking” at Heeley Bridge, which was a civil engineering scale matter.
  • Compulsory purchase, e.g. for car parking had been considered and was part of the options appraisal.  Whether it would be used would be dependent on funding.
  • Current issues regarding traffic at Meadowhead Roundabout were acknowledged but this project would not provide sufficient funding to completely resolve them.



Members advised that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority was considering the reform of bus franchising and attendees should contact the Combined Authority if they wished to contribute to this discussion.



The following information was provided by Mark Gibbons and Neal Byers in response to questions from Members of the Committee: -

  • There was insufficient data to answer whether decreasing parking was necessarily bad for local businesses.
  • Further funding from CRSTS (City Region Sustainable Trasport Settlements) might be available for other projects.
  • Engagement would take place with the landowner regarding what improvements could be made to traffic around St James Retail Park.
  • Monitoring the effect of a scheme on air quality was not straight forward due to the duration of monitoring needed in order to provide reliable data, i.e. 10 years. In such a long monitoring period it was likely that other changes would also take place which would make it difficult to identify the impact of one particular change.



Supporting documents: