A Review of the Kirklees Draft Transport Strategy – A Missed Opportunity for Active Travel?

The Kirklees Draft Transport Strategy (March 2025) sets out a vision for a “sustainable, healthy, and accessible” transport network, aiming for Net Zero by 2038. This is an encouraging step towards a greener, safer, and more inclusive transport system. The strategy rightly acknowledges the importance of walking, wheeling, cycling, and public transport, and its commitment to Vision Zero—eliminating traffic fatalities—is a major positive.

The general gist of the strategy is refreshing and positive, and Cycle Kirklees supports its ambitions. However, we believe it could be more ambitious and there is significant room for improvement to ensure that active travel is truly prioritised over car travel.

Kirklees has a poor track record of delivering high-quality cycling infrastructure in recent years, with several projects failing to meet best-practice standards. Words and aspirations alone are not enough—what matters is delivering the infrastructure and policy changes that will truly enable more people to walk, wheel, and cycle. This strategy must be accompanied by clear actions, strong commitments, and accountability to ensure that it results in real improvements rather than remaining a well-intentioned document with little impact. This draft strategy contains no actionable plans or measurable targets.

While the ambition is there, the delivery risks being piecemeal rather than transformational. Despite commitments to active travel, the strategy maintains a car-dominant approach in many areas and falls short of making walking, wheeling, and cycling the default travel choices.

The good

The inclusion of a policy that commits to creating and maintaining safe, high-quality, and integrated active travel networks, including traffic-free greenways and protected on-road routes, is a particularly positive aspect. This policy, if properly implemented, has the potential to significantly improve conditions for walking and cycling, enabling more people to choose active travel for both short and long journeys.

The strategy also includes Policy N-4, which commits to integrating bus priority, active travel, and accessibility enhancements whenever road maintenance is carried out. This is a positive step, as it ensures that streets are improved for walking and cycling during routine roadworks. However, we’ve recently seen an overhaul of the Shorehead roundabout in Huddersfield that did not include any of the planned cycle infrastructure, which remains unfunded. This has been one of our biggest criticisms in the past year—had the two projects been combined, it would have significantly reduced costs while delivering a more effective, multimodal transport upgrade.

The strategy recognises that Kirklees has significant room for growth in active travel, with 51% of car journeys under 10km—many of which could be replaced by cycling or walking. Investment in traffic-free greenways, better crossings, and safer streets is an important and welcome step. The recognition of public transport’s role in reducing congestion and emissions is also encouraging, particularly the commitment to bus franchising from 2027 and improvements to rail connections.

The strategy also notes that a significant portion of Kirklees residents do not own a car, making reliable alternatives essential. The focus on developing safe, accessible, and attractive streets aligns well with national best practices, particularly those outlined by Active Travel England (ATE).

The inclusion of road space reallocation and commitments to rebalance road space towards pedestrians, cyclists, and buses is a welcome step. However, the strategy lacks specifics on how, when, and where these reallocations will take place, making it difficult to assess the true level of ambition. Without clear implementation plans, funding commitments, and timelines, there is a risk that these aspirations remain words rather than actions.

The Bad: Still a Car-Centric Approach

Despite these positives, the document ultimately maintains motor vehicle dominance in Kirklees. For instance:

Several proposals appear to be piecemeal rather than forming a connected network. While the plan includes improvements to canal towpaths and greenways, these are not always linked to town centres or key transport hubs, limiting their effectiveness as a complete transport network.

Kirklees has a preference for shared-space and shared-footways rather than providing protected, separated cycling and walking facilities. This approach negatively impacts both modes by increasing conflict, reducing safety, and discouraging uptake. Active Travel England strongly advocates for fully separated infrastructure, particularly in busy areas.

Active travel measures are heavily caveated with phrases such as “where feasible” or “where demand exists.” Instead, the council should take a bold, proactive stance, creating the demand by building safe, attractive, and connected routes.

The strategy continues to focus on road capacity improvements, hiding behind the concept of improving the highway network for goods movement rather than embracing a broader approach to reducing car dependency. While investment in highway infrastructure for freight movement is important, a more effective strategy would focus on reducing overall car dependency, thereby freeing up road space for essential goods transport. Instead of tackling car reliance head-on, the strategy leans on supporting freight transport as a justification for continued road expansions, rather than implementing measures to get more vehicles off the road, which would naturally improve conditions for goods movement.

There is little mention of disincentivising car use, such as introducing congestion charges, workplace parking levies, or higher parking fees in town centres. Without such measures, modal shift will remain difficult.

Planning for active travel in new developments is weak. The strategy does not set out a strong requirement for new residential, commercial, and industrial developments to prioritise walking and cycling from the outset. There are no clear mandates for direct, safe, and separated active travel routes connecting new developments to key destinations, meaning car dependency could be locked in from the start.

Missed Opportunities: The Case for 20mph Limits and Welsh Comparisons

One of the most glaring omissions in the Kirklees strategy is the lack of a district-wide 20mph speed limit on urban and residential roads. While there are mentions of lower speed limits near schools, this does not go far enough. Evidence from Wales’ 20mph policy trials has shown significant reductions in serious injuries and fatalities (KSIs) on newly introduced 20mph roads. A report from Transport for Wales found that KSI incidents decreased by 25-30% in areas with default 20mph limits, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

By failing to propose such a shift, Kirklees lags behind best practice. A widespread 20mph policy, combined with public realm improvements, would encourage more people to walk and cycle while making streets safer and more liveable. This aligns with Active Travel England’s approach of prioritising safer, people-first street design over vehicle speed.

The Need for a Clear Road Hierarchy

Another area that lacks attention is road hierarchy and the role of residential streets. Currently, many residential streets in Kirklees are used as through-routes for motor vehicles, making them unsafe and unpleasant for walking and cycling. Instead, the council should adopt a policy of reducing through traffic on residential streets, creating larger areas with reduced vehicle access to prioritise local movement and safety. This approach has been widely successful in other cities, improving safety and encouraging active travel.

Reallocating road space in residential areas to prioritise walking, wheeling, and cycling would be a cost-effective and impactful change, reducing rat-running while promoting safer streets for all.

Weak commitments on tackling pavement parking and anti-social parking. Policy TD-2 acknowledges the issue and proposes vehicle parking controls and enforcement to keep pavements clear. However, there is no firm commitment to banning pavement parking outright or introducing physical deterrents such as bollards. Many UK cities are taking stronger stances on this issue to protect pedestrian space, and Kirklees should follow suit.

Conclusion: A Call for Greater Ambition

Kirklees Council has the opportunity to create a truly transformational transport strategy—and this draft is a promising foundation. However, to align with leading national and international best practices, we recommend:

1. A wider roll-out of a 20mph speed limit on most urban and residential streets, following the proven success of Wales’ policy.

2. A fully connected, protected cycle network that goes beyond “shared spaces” or fragmented lanes.

3. A firm commitment to road space reallocation, ensuring that street redesigns prioritise walking, cycling, and public transport over private car capacity, with dedicated infrastructure that makes these modes safer, more efficient, and more attractive.

4. A shift in funding priorities, ensuring that active travel infrastructure receives equal or greater investment than road network improvements.

5. Stronger integration of active travel into planning policies, making it the default option in all new developments.

6. A restructured road hierarchy, preventing through traffic on residential streets and prioritising local access for people over cars.

7. Policies to disincentivise car use, such as reduced parking provision, congestion charges, or workplace levies.

The Kirklees Draft Transport Strategy takes an important first step in shaping a more sustainable future, but without significant policy shifts, it risks becoming another missed opportunity rather than a blueprint for a truly safe, accessible, and thriving transport network.

toto slot situs slot situs gacor situs slot