Green Bristol Blog

Chris's Customized Cycle Cavalcade

2010-05-11T10:36:00.001+01:00

Chris Hutt passed away late February / early March 2010, aged 59 years.
His funeral was held at Canford Crematorium on the 30th April 2010.

I adapted and decorated a large bicycle to carry my dad's coffin with a cavalcade of cyclists following behind the cycle hearse to the crematorium.
Around 80 people turned up to say fair well. Thank you all, I was very touched and pleased that so many people made it.

Special thanks to:-
Kevin & Sylvie, Dorothy, Rosalind & Peter, and Rob & Mary
for all their help with the funeral arrangements, also the guest speakers at the service.

Below some sample images from the cycle cavalcade.
Thank you everyone who has contributed to the success of this bolg.
Chris Hutt Jnr. (Son).

Railway Path Still Targeted for Bus Route

2010-02-25T11:06:00.002Z

Since the Liberal Democrats came to power in Bristol just a year ago we all assumed that the plans to run Bus Rapid Transit (BRT, more popularly known as bendy-bus) down the Railway Path to link Emerson's Green to Temple Meads would be finally laid to rest. Noises were made about giving the Path greater protection and removing the BRT proposal from the development plans for the city. More recently the West of England Partnership published their proposals for their Hengrove to North Fringe BRT route (BRT3) which included a link to Emerson's Green via the Ring Road. So I for one thought that with Emerson's Green to Bristol city centre served by BRT via the M32 and Ring Road we could finally lower our guard on the original proposals for the Railway Path route.

But last night I got a shock. I was in the audience at a Civic Society meeting where Jon Rogers and Peter Mann, Bristol's new Service Director for Transport, were giving a presentation on the council's transport plans when the new plan above (click to enlarge) was briefly displayed. The plan shows diagrammatically the network of what Bristol City Council and the West of England Partnership (WoEP) consider the important transport links (i.e. ignoring walking and cycling) to be secured and improved.

The planned BRT routes are shown in cerise and comprise the Bath route (BRT1), the Long Ashton P&R to Centre route (BRT2), the Hengrove to North Fringe route (BRT3) and the South Bristol 'Link' (Ring Road) route (Hengrove to Long Ashton P&R). All depressingly familiar stuff to those of us that follow these things, but there is one more BRT route shown that comes as something of a shock - Emerson's Green to Temple Meads. There are only two viable BRT routes from Emerson's Green to Temple Meads - the M32/Ring Road corridor followed by BRT3 and the Railway Path (as shown on the map below). So the line shown can only mean the Railway Path is still targeted.

View BRT to Emerson's Green in a larger map

No doubt the WoEP will insist that the Emerson's Green to Temple Meads line is only notional and potential routes have yet to be assessed. But what potential routes are there other than the Railway Path? For comparison I've identified the best available road route (yellow above), mainly via Stapleton Road, Fishponds Road, Downend Road and Westerleigh Road. The road route is slightly shorter than either BRT3 (blue above) or the Railway Path (red above), but narrow, congested, subject to low speed limits and with many traffic signals, totally unsuitable for BRT. Journey times could not begin to compete with the Railway Path or BRT3. A road route for BRT to Emerson's Green is simply not viable.

The WoEP plan document properties show that this version has only just been published this month. It represents the latest thinking of the West of England Partnership and Bristol City Council (the two being effectively the same thing in Bristol transport planning terms). So all the recent talk of finally burying the BRT-on-Railway Path plan seems to have been a smokescreen to distract us from the real strategy of lining the Railway Path route up for implementation on the back of the hoped for success of BRT routes 1, 2 and 3.

Two years ago there was a massive campaign to stop the BRT-on-Railway Path plan, a campaign that succeeded in getting the plan "shelved". Now we know what some of us long suspected, that "shelved" merely means delayed until a more expedient time arrives. So will the campaigners of 2008 rise to the challenge in 2010? With an election on the way now is the moment to finally put the BRT-on-Railway Path plan to death. If we wait for the WoEP to choose a time more favourable to themselves then we might live to deeply regret it.

Residents' Parking - A Way Forward?

2010-02-22T07:59:00.002Z

Bristol City Council's proposals to introduce Residents Parking Schemes in Kingsdown and Cliftonwood have suffered a setback with a largely negative public response, based on an admittedly poor response rate, to the latest round of consultations. In Cliftonwood 57% of those responding were opposed and in Kingsdown 47% were opposed compared to 45% in favour. Only the area of Kingsdown south of Cotham Road showed a tiny majority (46.1% to 45.5%) in favour of the RPS.

Typical footway blocking in the area south of Queen's Road, Clifton - P120NRL.

It's hard to see how the Council can continue with the schemes in the face of such a response. Even the majority in the smaller Kingsdown Zone is wafer thin and hardly a solid base for proceeding. The council will decide how to proceed at its Cabinet meeting on March 25th, but is expected to delegate the decision on the Kingsdown scheme to David Bishop, the Strategic Director of City Development, which sounds to me like an attempt by the politicians to distance themselves from what will inevitably be a controversial decision whichever way it goes.

It seems clear that the Cliftonwood and north-of-Cotham Road areas will not now proceed which will leave the very obvious problems (pictured) largely unresolved. So is there perhaps a way forward that somehow reconciles the opposing factions? Back in January of last year I floated an idea which could do that, so it is perhaps time to resurrect it. The essence of my approach is to let people decide whether to be part of a Residents' Parking Scheme (RPS) on an individual basis. What could be more democratic than that?

To give a practical example supposing in a particular street there were 50% of households who wanted to opt in to an RPS, why not allocate 50% of the available parking spaces to the scheme and allow the remainder to remain uncontrolled? Nobody need be forced in to an RPS they don't agree with. Those households who choose to remain out of the RPS will continue to compete for the remaining uncontrolled spaces as at present. The costs of setting up and managing the schemes would be borne solely by those opting in.

Such an approach could develop incrementally with people opting in or out whenever they like, subject to changes to the street markings. It need not be limited to narrowly defined areas either. In theory anyone, anywhere in Bristol could apply for an RPS in their street, even if they were the only one interested. One space could be allocated to the one member of the scheme who would pay the costs. Simple enough? Well not quite so simple in practice of course but no more complicated than the present scheme.

And Quiet Flows the Avon

2010-02-17T10:13:00.003Z

The River Avon tow path from Netham up to Hanham and Keynsham, subject of my previous post, is one of our local gems and deserves to be made more accessible to all. Comments on the last post drew attention to one of the worst discontinuities, the 300 metre length of Conham Road (shown red in map at end of post) that cannot currently be avoided when connecting the Netham - Crew's hole section with the Conham - Hanham section. There is a narrow footway but perversely it runs on the opposite side of the road to the tow path connections at either end.

Here we see a family attempting to cross from tow path to footway at the Conham end. They've moved as far as they can down the road to keep away from the blind corner to the right behind the photographer. Visibility in the other direction is better but still not very good, so the crossing manoeuvre remains risky despite all their precautions. Sadly their concern for their safety is not shared by the highway authority, Bristol City Council, who appear to have done nothing to resolve this problem.

Eventually a brief gap in the traffic gives our family a chance to cross, but they will be confronted by a similar problem just 300 metres further on to regain the tow path at Crew's Hole, hardly an incentive to enjoy the Avon Valley as a walker. So what's is to be done? Well, probably nothing unless Bristol City Council have a big change in attitude and 'priorities', putting safety before the right of motorists to treat our streets like motorways. But let's suppose that such a day arrives, what are the options?

The most obvious option is to switch the footway from the inland side of the road (below, looking towards Conham) to the riverside. At the same time the footway could be widened to say 3 metres to be suitable for shared use with cyclists on the same basis as the rest of the route from Netham to Hanham. However this would effectively reduce the carriageway (road) to a single track road so motor traffic would have to be managed differently.

Apart form a limited amount of local access Conham Road is mainly used as a rat run to avoid the A431 above the valley and as such there is little justification for maintaining the existing traffic volumes and speeds. Since the section of Conham Road in question is just 300 metres one option would be to introduce traffic signals to allow shuttle operation one way at a time. Alternatively this section of could be made one-way to give sufficient space for a cycle/walkway on the riverside. Such measures need not be prohibitively expensive and could be implemented quite quickly on an experimental basis to establish their practicality.

So why have Bristol City Council, and Avon County Council before it, done nothing for more than 30 years? And more importantly, why will Bristol City Council continue to do nothing for at least the next 5 years, despite its pretensions to be a cycling city and to promote walking? May I suggest Institutional Motorism - a deep rooted prejudice in favour of motorised traffic at the expense even of the safety, let alone the convenience, of those that dare to travel on foot or bicycle?

View River Avon - Netham to Keynsham and Bitton in a larger map

Hope for the Avon Path?

2010-02-08T10:31:00.001Z

A piece in today's Evening Post reports that some progress may be being made behind the scenes towards upgrading the old tow-path along the River Avon between Conham and Hanham. You may recall that I blogged about the current appalling state of the tow-path last year, which resulted in some much neglected maintenance being carried out within a few days. It seems that the publicity might have had a more far reaching effect because the two local councils with riparian responsibilities, Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council, are actually talking to each other about dealing with the problems. Those familiar with local politics will know that this is no small achievement in itself.

The upgrading of the River Avon tow-path was proposed by local campaign group Cyclebag (the precursor to Sustrans) back in 1978 as part of its proposals for the creation of a Bristol to Bath Cycle/Walkway. It was originally envisaged that the route should follow the Avon to a point south of Bitton where the former Midland Railway branch line would be joined to continue to Bath. The former railway section was built the following year, 1979, as a result of a remarkable volunteer effort powered through by John Grimshaw in particular. But the River Avon section remained largely untouched except for some upgrading between Netham and Conham about 10 years ago. So perhaps 32 years later it is at last timely to progress this scheme, not least in the context of Bristol's Cycling City aspirations?

Although the Bristol to Bath cycle route ended up following the former Midland railway all the way back to Bristol via Mangotsfield, a rather circuitous route, the River Avon tow-path route still has great potential to make an outstanding contribution to the range of recreational routes available to cyclists and walkers around Bristol. As indicated in the map below it could also provide a practical commuting and utility route linking Keynsham to Bristol, far more agreeable than slogging down the A4, and an attractive alternative to the established Bristol & Bath Railway Path.

View River Avon - Netham to Keynsham and Bitton in a larger map

As always emails and letters to the local authorities and relevant councillors will help spur them towards finding practical solutions. It seems from the Evening Post story that South Glos councillor Andy Perkins is taking a particular interest so messages of support and appreciation in that direction might be timely, as well as our old friend Jon Rogers, Bristol's transport supremo.This path really could be a jewel in the crown of cycling around Bristol so think of the warm glow to be experienced in future years when you can take some small credit for having helped rescue this path from dereliction and decay.

The Railway Path - Before and After

2010-01-21T11:08:00.001Z

Following on from yesterday's post about the excessive tree felling on the Railway Path north of Ridgeway Road I've dug out a few pics to try to give a 'before and after' effect. The before pics, taken without permission from Martyn's railwaypath blog, were taken in the spring of 2008 and so include foliage which would not be present in mid winter, but it gives some idea of the impact on the visual environment of the Path, even allowing for some greening of the denuded embankments over the next few months. One can at least see why the impact is a bit shocking to regular Path users who have grown used to feeling as though they are travelling through dense woodland.

Above and berlow - looking northeast towards Lodge Causeway Bridge from a position north of Drummond Road footbridge.

All the tree felling depicted here is on the south side of the Path. The lighting trench is being installed on the north side so the damage to tree roots will be confined to the that side. Likewise the need to clear around the lighting columns to avoid foliage obscuring them will be confined to the north side. Virtually all the south side felling is unnecessary in the context of the installation of lighting.

Above and below - looking southwest towards Drummond Road footbridge.

Overkill on the Railway Path?

2010-01-20T09:30:00.001Z

Over at Fishponds work has just started on extending the street lighting of the Bristol & Bath Railway Path from Ridgeway Road to Staple Hill Tunnel. The work involves digging a trench alongside the Path for the electricity cables and a certain amount of disruption and visual impact is inevitable, but some Path users have expressed concern at the extent of the impact on the once green corridor.

One can understand that a certain amount of cutting back of existing vegetation is required, including the removal f trees that have grown too close to the Path. As a general principle about a metre or so of grass verge should be maintained either side of the tarmac path itself to ensure that the full width can be used and to ensure reasonable sight lines. Lighting also needs to be clear of envelopment by adjacent foliage. But the contractors seem to be taking things too far.

It seems pretty clear that many mature trees well over a metre from the Path have been felled. Is this really necessary? The effect is devastating, reminding me of how the old railway looked back in the early 1980s before the Path was built. Of course the vegetation will grow back but the trees will take decades to recover. The importance of the 'greenness' of the Railway Path corridor cannot be overstated. It was the loss of the 'green' quality that above all prompted thousands to protest against Bristol City Council's recent plans to build a BRT bendy bus track along the Path.

At least one complainant has taken the initiative of emailing Bristol's 'Transport Supremo' Jon Rogers about this and I urge others to do the same. We know from bitter experience over many years, indeed decades, that we cannot entrust the care of the Railway Path to the local authorities. They lack the awareness of the sensitivities that rightly attach to the Railway Path which still represents a rare example of the popular will overcoming bureaucratic intransigence.

Slow and Nice

2010-01-14T10:18:00.001Z

Now that the snow and ice is disappearing it is perhaps time to become a little nostalgic about it. Of course there were problems with ungritted pavements (as I may have mentioned) and neglected cycle paths, but every cloud has a silver lining and so with the snow and ice - it radically reduced the speed and volume of traffic which is the holy grail for many environmentally minded campaigners. At a stroke Mother Nature achieved what we mere humans can only dream of - a city where cars were rarely used, where everyone drove slowly and cautiously, where walking became the default mode of transport and where people suddenly found that they had time to stop and talk to each other.

Others have waxed lyrical on the same theme. Even hard case Evening Post columnist Mike Ford (the Bedminster Bigmouth) seems almost human in his latest column. Those commentators attribute the change in the public mood to the snow and ice but I suggest that it was as much the secondary effect of dramatically suppressing vehicular traffic which transformed out streets from hazardous race tracks to places to enjoy at a gentle walking pace. So many people have remarked on how much more sociable our local streets became over the last few weeks with neighbours stopping to talk to each other for perhaps the first time ever.

In part I think this renaissance in sociability was down to the fact that the street itself (and not just the narrow footways at the side) became a relatively safe place to walk, or just to stand and chat. The presumption that the street was the exclusive domain of vehicles was called into question by the impassable nature of the snow and ice covered footways. Everyone seemed to recognise this and even the 4x4 brigade seemed a little less arrogant. On almost every street except those that had been cleared most people took to walking down the middle of the road out of sheer necessity.

So can we reclaim something of that pedestrian friendliness and sociability by slowing and restraining traffic as a matter of course? That is certainly what many hope and the widespread support for the 20's Plenty (20 mph) campaign is I believe based largely on such aspirations. I'm tempted to ask whether we should perhaps abandon pavements in some streets and encourage people to walk down the middle of the road instead. This approach is known as 'shared space' but remains very controversial with many feeling that pedestrians would then be at the mercy of bullying motorists. At least let's all think about the lessons that we can learn from the Slow and Nice experience of the last few weeks.

Why Cycling City is Off Track

2010-01-11T10:19:00.003Z

Tonight (but see PS below) I get my 15 seconds or so of fame in a TV programme, Inside Out, going out at 7.30 pm on BBC 1. My brief appearance will be part of a 10 minute slot on Cycling City, also featuring Cllr Jon Rogers and a few other local cycling savants. Basically Jon will be seen shivering out on the St Werburgh's path being upbeat and positive while I will be seen shivering on Hartcliffe Way being critical and negative. We were both interviewed (separately) for about an hour or so, but little of what was said will find its way into the programme, perhaps just a few sound bites to fit the narrative.

One sound bite that I'm sure will be used is when I am asked if Cycling City is succeeding or failing and I reply....well, you guess. So why is it failing? Well in the first place it set itself hopelessly unrealistic targets, especially doubling the number of cyclists within the three years, and so by its own criteria it's bound to fail. If it was merely a question of setting over ambitious targets Cycling City might be forgiven - we've all been there. But the problems are more fundamental than that.

I blogged about these fundamental problems on many occasions but in essence in comes down to a lack of honesty and openness which we can trace back a very long way, through the previous Labour administration of Bristol City Council to Cycling England and Sustrans. All subscribe to the idea that you can and should spin a story even if it has little substance to back it up. The Sustrans National Cycle Network was an outstanding example of this and it was a remarkably successful sleight-of-hand since no one was really in a position to go and comprehensively check on what really existed, before and after NCN, on the ground.

But in Bristol it's different. It is possible for one person to explore all the existing and proposed cycle network and see exactly how existing routes are being presented as new ones (e.g. Hartcliffe Way above). But having based the Cycling City strategy on this deceit it's very difficult for the Council to back out of it - what would be left to give credibility to Cycling City? As it happens the more intangible aspects of Cycling City, like the publicity generated, may well prove to be the more significant in terms of encouraging cycling, but people expect to see physical changes on the ground and they are difficult to deliver, especially within such a short time scale.

PS. Having just posted this, I now hear that this Inside Out feature may be postponed and replaced with a 'snow' special. I'll update if I hear anything more definite.

PPS. Yep, it's confirmed that the Cycling City feature will now go out next Monday instead.

Slippery Sustrans

2010-01-10T14:06:00.001Z

Bristol is home to "the UK's leading sustainable transport charity", Sustrans, who have their national head quarters down in Trinity Street, next door to the Cathedral and conveniently within spitting distance of the Council House. Sustainable transport of course means above all cycling and walking, so it is perhaps instructive to note their own efforts to clear the well used walking route outside their offices (the white facade below).

That's strange, even by 4 p.m. on Wednesday 6th Jan (above) no one in "the UK's leading leading sustainable transport charity" seems to have bothered to clear the pavement outside. Perhaps they were short staffed that day, what with the snow problems. Surely by Friday 8th (below) someone will have noticed that the pavement outside is in need of clearing, or are they all too busy designing glossy brochures and flashy websites to notice what is going on outside in the real world?

The Ice Man Cometh

2010-01-08T08:45:00.002Z

After my petulant outbursts yesterday about Bristol City Council's failure to deal with hazardous pavement icing, even when specifically reported to them, there was the usual exchange of jibes on Twitter which resulted in Cllr Jon Rogers (Executive Member for Transport & Sustainability no less - below) challenging me to go out with him there and then and spread some grit.

I could hardly refuse and so for 40 minutes or so after 9 p.m. passers-by on Queen's Road, Clifton, were entertained by the sight of two scruffy middle-aged men scrabbling around grit bins like tramps scavenging dog ends. We quickly emptied one of the two local grit bins but the grit in the other was rock solid and unusable. Still we managed to deal with the worst sections of the footway and it was gratifying to see that people immediately started to follow our line of grit over the ice (visible to my right below). One even said thank you!

So that's what can be achieved with a bit of gumption. Jon Rogers' has a lot of that, it has to be said. He even lectured me on how to walk on the roads against the oncoming traffic to avoid having to use slippery pavements, explaining that you don't give way until you see the whites of their eyes! And I thought I was the militant one. To Jon even the snow and ice is an opportunity to assert a new paradigm for the concept of sharing the roads. I'm all for that.

How Many More before Bristol Council Act?

2010-01-07T19:10:00.000Z

As warned on this blog on Monday and again this morning, the junction of Richmond Hill and Queen's Road is proving lethal with walkers falling like nine pins. In about 20 minutes this evening I witnessed dozens of slips, half a dozen falls and one suspected broken bone requiring an ambulance. In addition almost every car emerging from Richmond Hill was sliding on the ice into Queen's Road, unable to stop.

It was all pretty sickening, watching and knowing some were going to fall, knowing that each car was going to slide out of control on the ice. And all avoidable, if only we had a Council able to listen to a simple bit of advice and act on it. But instead we have a Council suffering bureaucratic rigor mortis, unable to respond even at this most elementary level of human decency. You take pictures, you explain the problem, you put it on a public blog, representatives of the Council see it and - nothing.

So now we have real injuries, fractures, confirmed by photographic evidence. Will this be enough to inject some life into this moribund council? Probably not, so alienated are they to feeling anything resembling empathy with the public they are supposed to serve. I despair, this is just a simple matter of spreading some grit. Is that so difficult? Do I have to go and do it myself? Oh for a spade and wheelbarrow (which I haven't got). Can I bear to go back again, knowing that it is just a matter of minutes before I see another fall?

Get A Grit!

2010-01-07T08:19:00.003Z

As we wake up today to find that all the slush and water from yesterday's slight thaw has frozen solid to ice, thanks to overnight temperatures that reached -7° C, many of us might have cause to wonder why nothing seems to be done about making at least some of our pavements safe to walk on. Even yesterday late afternoon some predictably lethal patches were claiming victims, like the Richmond Hill/Queen's Road junction highlighted here on Monday.

As also discussed here on Monday, Bristol City Council's policy is to grit the main roads but not the footways (pavements), leaving pedestrians to fend for themselves. The Council's justification for this seems to be that if they did anything for pedestrians at all they would then be held responsible for all pavements, although the same logic does not seem to apply to motorists. There are of course one or two exceptions, like the carefully cleared ramps up to the entrance to the Council House (below). At least they are keeping their own house in order.

All the Council appear to do as far as us lowly pedestrians are concerned is to refer us to their extensive collection of grit bins, although Cotham Councillor Neil Harrison does say on his blog that "Pavements on the main roads get gritted by the manual road cleaners on their normal rota". Well there was precious little evidence of that yesterday. The only pavements that had been cleared appeared to have been done on a piecemeal basis by adjacent shop keepers, as we see below in Park Street, which apart from being a major pedestrian thoroughfare is also rather steep and you might think something of a priority for gritting.

So what about these grit bins. I can confirm that all the ones I inspected (yes, I am that sad) are full of grit, but the grit isn't getting where it's needed because the Council seem to have overlooked a rather vital link in the chain. Just how do they suppose the grit is going to get spread on our pavements? Cheery teams of volunteers working selflessly to improve their communities? A nice idea but unfortunately that's not the nature of our society. So the grit remains untouched in hundreds of grit bins spread around the city.

But what about Cllr Harrison's claim that "Pavements on the main roads get gritted by the manual road cleaners on their normal rota"? It seems we spend £5.5 million of street cleansing, which averages out at about £10,000 a day, enough to employ a hundred or so Street Cleaning Operatives you might think. So what were our small army of Street Cleansing Operatives up to yesterday? I happened across one and followed discreetly for a while (that's about as good as it gets for me these days). Totally ignoring the snow and slush, he busied himself trudging around in a forlorn attempt to find items of litter to pick up. When our streets are crying out for gritting this is just totally stupid (not that I blame the Operative per se - I presume he was just doing as instructed).

By chance I came across some info about York's response to snow and ice. We see that despite being a relatively flat city they appear to have a comprehensive plan which includes treating the pavements on many strategic pedestrian routes with no less than eight downloadable maps showing exactly which pavements will be kept clear. So York's a bit further north and gets more snow, but is that really any excuse for Bristol City Council's comparatively pisspoor response?

Later edit: this post got 'retweeted' on Twitter a fair bit and there is now a #GritforBristol topic.

Priorities Made Plain

2010-01-04T08:57:00.003Z

However much Bristol City Council might talk up how important they think walking and cycling, their true priorities are laid bare for all to see when the snow falls. Here we have a view of Queen's Road, Clifton, from 1 p.m. on 21st December, a little more than 12 hours after the snowfall. The main roads are of course clear and operating normally but the pavement in the foreground at the junction with Richmond Hill, the main walking route from Clifton, remains untreated and walkers are already sliding around as the snow is compacted to ice.

This location is notorious for becoming treacherous for walkers after snow falls since it is heavily used, slopes markedly and is shaded from the winter sun by the adjacent block of flats. Yet there isn't even a grit bin at this location. One of the nearest grit bins is located on a traffic island by the Victoria Rooms (visible as a yellow lump in the distance below), convenient for use on the road but hopelessly inconvenient for the footways. Even four days later no attempt had been made to deal with the ice, other than to wait for a thaw, and the pavement remained treacherous.

Down at the Docks it's a similar story. The south side quays are largely shaded by adjacent buildings from the low winter sun and by 25th December the snow had turned to an almost continuous sheet of ice and remained so for days afterwards. And this at a time of year when a walk, jog or bike ride around the Docks would be a very popular and necessary recreation. But the ice has clearly put so many people off, not to mention those who've ended up in hospital with sprains or fractures. Should it not be part of the duties of the Harbour Master to ensure that quay sides are kept safe for walking, jogging and cycling, the main ways in which most people interact with the Docks?

The Council's policy appears to be to grit and clear the main road network, but not including footways or cycleways, however important they may be. That is simply inconsistent with their new rhetoric about encouraging cycling and walking. This coming week, with sub-zero temperatures forecast for every night and some sleet and snowfalls, will see many more 'accidents' as people follow the Council's exhortations to walk or cycle to work. We have the right to expect strategic walking and cycling routes to be identified and treated in the same methodical way as the strategic routes for motor vehicles.

PS - It seems the Evening Post take a similar view. Oh dear.

The Centre - Alternative Routes

2010-01-02T11:01:00.001Z

The proposals to restrain general traffic passing through the Centre will inevitably have knock-on effects for other parts of the road network and it will be the capacity of the wider network to absorb displaced traffic that will limit what can be achieved in the Centre. That is not to say that all the displaced traffic will have to be accommodated elsewhere. Some displaced car trips will be made by other modes instead and some will not be made at all, but a proportion of displaced trips, particularly those made by vans and lorries, will still need to be accommodated somewhere.

View City Centre changes - Dec 2009 in a larger map

The map above attempts to identify the alternative routes that will bear the brunt of the displaced traffic. As well as taking out the option of linking from Baldwin Street to the Centre the map shows Prince Street Bridge as closed to motor traffic as is already planned to accommodate the Ashton Vale BRT. The net effect is that journeys by car, van or lorry between the Clifton area and the south of the city become very constrained compared to what is currently possible. There will be almost no practical means of passing between those areas between the Cumberland Basin to the west and Newfoundland Circus (Cabot Circus) to the east.

In the south to north-west direction it appears that a couple of other routes will remain open (shown light blue on the map) along sections of one-way street, via Union Street in Broadmead and via Small Street and Nelson Street (although this latter is very circuitous). Union Street is frequently congested anyway and is an important bus route so it's unlikely that extra traffic can be accommodated there. In the other southbound direction one or two routes are possible but so circuitous as to be impractical, except perhaps the Bridewell St - Pithay route shown yellow which I suspect will need to be closed off to prevent it developing into a major rat run.

Elsewhere we can see that Park Street will become less attractive as a through route since it will lead only to St Jame's Barton, which can be reached more directly via Park Row - Marlborough Street. Indeed this might pave the way towards closing Park Street itself to motor traffic and diverting traffic via Jacob's Wells Road, but that's another story. Clearly Park Row - Marlborough Street will take displaced traffic and given how congested that corridor already is that must present problems.

From St James Barton round to Newfoundland Circus, Old Market (above) and Temple Circus will also take displaced traffic. In addition this is the planned route of the BRT going anti-clockwise around the city centre so there are more capacity issues there. Something has to give if these changes are to be pushed through. That something should not be the economic vitality of the city and we have to recognise that motor traffic, particularly commercial van and lorry traffic, has an important role there.

So that just leaves the private car, the elephant in the room that we all know is the root of the problem but few will dare criticise directly. Yet the relative ease with which cars pass around the city must change quite dramatically if any real improvements in the quality of the urban environment are to be achieved. Politicians like Jon Rogers have the unenviable job of trying to persuade a population, wedded to a myth of personal freedom through car ownership, of this simple reality.

All Change at the Centre?

2010-01-01T12:10:00.005Z

We've been hearing rumours for a while of plans for some radical changes to traffic patterns around the Centre and Bristol City Council decided to slip the controversial announcement out in the doldrums between Christmas and the New Year. Both the Evening Post and BBC picked it up, followed by a story on bike news site Road CC. The Post story attracted over 200 comments which is pretty good for the middle of a national holiday so they've run it for two more days. The proposals are shown in some detail on the map below (click to enlarge).

The essential elements of the proposal are that Colston Street and Baldwin Street will be closed to general traffic (except buses and cyclists) at their junctions with the Centre (St Augustine's Parade, Broadquay and Colston Avenue) and the only route through the Centre for general traffic will be north-south (shown east-west on the maps) from below College Green through to Lewin's Mead. Movements via Baldwin Street will not be possible except by circuitous local links. In addition the ends of Denmark Street and St Stephen's Street will be closed off to all traffic to eliminate potential rat runs and further improve the pedestrian realm. The effect of the proposals is more clearly shown on this map.

The Council are consulting on the proposals and to their credit have adapted their 'Ask Bristol' site to become what is in effect a Wordpress blog enabling comments to be posted, viewed and even commented on in turn, in the familiar manner. So far the response to the blog style approach seems to be positive and it's certainly far more engaging that Ask Bristol's previous highly controlled nods towards public engagement.

Comments on the proposed Centre remodelling are predictably mixed and often polarised. Some think the Centre should revert to a glorified traffic roundabout as it was in the 1980s while others think the current proposals far too tame and unambitious. My view is that these are basically sound proposals that strike the right sort of balance between the need to reclaim more of the public realm from the car and the need to accommodate a reasonable level of vehicular access.

Of course there is much more that can and should be done but in reality these things need to be carried through incrementally so that they can bed in and we can all adjust. Too much change in one go will provoke a backlash (and we get a taste of that from the BEP comments) and undermine the longer term objectives. We want to make as much progress as possible but there are limits to how much change people will accept before things get nasty and I suspect these proposals are pushing at that limit already.

The closure of Colston Street in front of the Colston Hall (above foreground) will allow for the creation of a kind of Piazza and complement the work to upgrade the Colston Hall itself. The closure of the end of Baldwin St will remove much of the existing traffic in Baldwin St and even in Park St since Park Row will generally provide the most direct route towards the south and east of the city. Pedestrian movements from the Centre towards the Old City (Corn St) and Broadmead will be much less interrupted by traffic flows into Baldwin St.

The Closure of other streets that currently connect to the Centre, like Denmark St and St Stephen’s St will improve pedestrian permeability and safety and bring those streets into the Centre 'ambience' and perhaps improve trade for businesses in those streets. Restricting the main north-south St Augustine’s Parade traffic to two lanes will allow for reasonable access but discourage through traffic and so minimise the impact of the remaining traffic. This could be complemented by making the whole Centre area subject to 20 mph limits to reduce potential conflict with pedestrians.

There is clearly much detailed work to be done to refine the proposals, for example in terms of accommodating cycle movements and providing priority crossings for pedestrians, but the big battle is to get the main thrust of the proposals accepted. As with the 20 mph proposals, we can play an important role in bringing that about. The Ask Bristol site gives us a suitable platform so let's all give Jon Rogers the support he deserves in trying to bring these much needed changes forward.

Global Warming - The Solution (Part 1).

2009-11-29T15:13:00.005Z

Firstly apologies for the long gap since my least blog. Unfortunately the real world occasionally intervenes and drags me away. There have been so many things to blog about too, what with Bristol City Council's capitulation to 'business-as-usual-only-more-so-and-stuff-the-environment' with their decision to pursue the football World Cup bid. That I will hopefully come back to anon, but with Copenhagen fast approaching it seems timely to launch my own modestly titled 'Solution to Global Warming'.

Obligatory smoking chimney pic

Let me say at the outset that I'm not the only person proposing this kind of approach and I'm not claiming it as some great leap in thinking. It is merely the simple application of free market principles (no, that's not an oxymoron) to the problem, an application of the 'polluter pays' principle and an example of an ecotax. It's simple in essence so easily understood by the consumer but would allow for the evolution of sophistication, entreprise and diversity in it's implementation (which I'll describe in Part 2). What's most important, in contrast to Cap-and-Trade, it would actually work.

The essence of the system is that the consumer of goods or services should pay for the environmental costs arising from the supply of those goods or services, including of course the cost of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In the case of carbon dioxide the cost would be what it actually costs to neutralise or fully mitigate the environmental impact. So far so familiar. But then the final element is where it gets interesting. The environmental costs paid by the consumer must be used to pay for (and will be determined by) the environmental neutralisation or mitigation so that the impact really is neutralised/mitigated.

I'll describe the mechanism for doing this in some detail in Part 2 in due course but let's first consider how such a system would work in principle. Say Mr Consumer wants to travel to exotic climes. He looks at air fares, but finds that the incorporation of the environmental costs makes air travel much more expensive. He then has three choices.

Pay the higher air fare and fly (in which case his environmental impact will be neutralised/mitigated so no problem).
Travel by some other means and/or a shorter distance with a lower environmental impact and pay the lower environmental costs (in which case no problem)
Not travel (in which case no problem).

Freedom of choice but with responsibility. The same would apply to every single item of consumption because every good or service would incorporate its environmental costs. Even a cup of coffee or a hamburger would be more expensive precisely in proportion to its total environmental impact. So we would all inevitably adjust our spending to favour options with low environmental impacts and eschew options with high environmental impacts. We would find all energy costs much higher so we would need to travel less and invest in much better home insulation, meat and dairy products would be more expensive and vegetarian options less so and so on through the whole gamut of modern consumption.

Nobody would be denied the theoretical choice of flying, or driving an inefficient car, or whatever, but since such options would become so much more expensive only the relatively wealthy will have the practical means to choose (which is already true for most of the world's population anyway). The consequence would be a big shift in consumption patterns and the demise of many contemporary business models, notably those predicated on cheap air travel like, er, the World Cup (good choice Bristol City Council). Businesses would have to adapt and quickly to survive and prosper.

So problem solved? All the world's nations have to do in Copenhagen is agree to adopt such a system in good time and we can all forget about the worst of the Global Warming scenarios (unless it's already too late, in which case we can worry about our future survival instead on how to avoid Climate Change)? But of course they won't for the very simple reason that it would actually work. That is the last thing that powerful business interests want. Better for them to carry on with failing policies like Cap-and-Trade than adopt a policy that will actually work.

It's Total Twenty (well almost).

2009-11-12T17:18:00.003Z

Bristol City Council have just issued a Press Release on their 20 mph proposals for south and east Bristol. The number of roads excluded from the 20 mph coverage has been pared right down. The south Bristol is now 'Total Twenty' with no exclusions except the fragments on Clarence Road and York Road along the Cut which are effectively outside the scheme area. The whole of the A38 (West St - Malago Road - Bedminster Parade) is now included as 20 mph.

In east Bristol the exclusions (shown red below) are the M32 - Newfoundland Way - Newfoundland St, Easton Way -Lawrence Hill Roundabout - Barrow Road, Lawrence Hill - Church Road,
Old Market - West Street - Lawford Street/Lamb Street/Lawfords Gate/Trinity Road - Clarence Road (the A420). No one ever expected the M32 and Easton Way to be included so effectively it's just the A420 that has been excluded. That will still disappoint some but the gains compared to the officers' original proposals are enormous.

The proposals will have to be the subject of Traffic Regulation Orders before they can be implemented and it is possible that there might be objections, but it looks as though the overwhelming degree of public support for 20 mph proposals has carried the day. Credit to all those who have contributed to the consultations and debate, especially to 20splenty4Bristol, Bristol Living Streets, Bristol Cycling Campaign and above all to Jon Rogers for pushing so hard for the minimum of exclusions. We must also recognise the willingness of the officers themselves to listen to the public and to reconsider their initial position

The Arena - Disconnected Thinking?

2009-11-12T10:26:00.006Z

It seems that there is now a serious push on to site an Arena (circle below) at Ashton Vale near the site now allocated for a new football stadium (rectangle below), with the Bristol Evening Post once again acting as cheerleader. Bristol's current political leaders all seem to be in favour of an Ashton Vale Arena, partly on the grounds that there is a 'synergy' between the Football Stadium and an Arena in terms of their transport infrastructure requirements, which is true up to a point.

View Arenas and Stadiums in a larger map

But an Arena isn't quite the same as a football stadium, mainly because it is likely to be staging events far more frequently and so having a much more significant impact in transport terms. The inescapable reality is that an Ashton Vale Arena will be accessed overwhelmingly by car even if the Ashton Vale BRT is developed, whereas the site previously envisaged for an Arena near Temple Meads could really make good use of our rail infrastructure and would be much more accessible by walking, cycling and bus due to its central location.

Land at Ashton Vale as it is now, following wanton destruction of trees earlier this year.

George Ferguson has been quick to speak out against the Ashton Vale proposal for this reason. This blog has had its differences with George in the past but once again he is saying clearly and loudly what desperately needs to be said. If we are even half serious about becoming a Green Capital or even just a Sustainable City then we need to think seriously about the transport implications of such iconic new developments as the Arena. Quite apart from the number of trips generated the character of the accessibiltiy of the Arena will send out signals about the future character of Bristol as a whole.

One only has to visit Cardiff Millenium Stadium to see the extent to which its proximity to Cardiff Central Station and its generally central location in the city is the key to its accessibility. Think of the 'synergy' between an Arena at Temple Meads and our rail services, which would receive a big boost during otherwise off-peak periods. The infrastructure and the capacity is there already and has the potential to be increased. Admittedly there is the posibility of some limited rail access being developed near Ashton Vale but this would be out on a limb rather than at the heart of the region's rail network and simply wouldn't have the capacity to replace more than a token amount of car journeys.

So once again those of us who care about the future direction must add our voices to that of George Ferguson and try to point out the contradictions between an Arena at Ashton Vale and a sustainable future for Bristol. Having the Football Stadium at Ashton Vale, just 750 metres further out than the existing football stadium, is one thing but an Arena that will draw crowds from the whole of Greater Bristol and well beyond is something else.

Time Running Out for Hourbikes?

2009-11-11T08:39:00.001Z

A comment by Tim on the previous post dealing with Hourbikes drew attention to the declining number of bikes listed as available from the 4 'hubs' in central Bristol, according to Hourbike's own map. At the time of writing only 10 bikes are shown compared to 18 at the launch of Hourbikes in July. Numbers also appeared low at the 4 UWE/Parkway hubs with just 13 shown as available.

I've been keeping an eye on some of the Hourbike stands (yes CCTV people, that shifty looking character hanging around the hubs is me) and there's little evidence of any use. From time to time there's one more bike at one and one less bike at another, but I've never actually seen anybody using the system. Has anyone? Back in the summer we were told use would pick up when the students returned, which may or may not be true out at UWE but hasn't happened in central Bristol.

On the plus side I've been surprised at how little vandalism there's been. A couple of the wire baskets have been crushed but otherwise the bikes seem to have remained unscathed. Theft might explain the diminishing numbers of bikes, but I suspect they are being quietly withdrawn for use elsewhere. Ten bikes is still more than enough to cope with the minimal demand.

So is there any future for Hourbikes in Bristol? Certainly not on the basis of the current minimal coverage, as many people said at the outset. There doesn't seem to be any effort to secure more hubs either, even at Temple Meads station which is the most obvious location. And I can't see Cycling City throwing any more money at Hourbikes on the basis of current performance.

The failure of the Hourbike venture should be an object lesson for us all in the need for these things to be based on sound market economics and not just wishful thinking. The waste of resources on the Hourbike scheme has been as modest as the network coverage but there was, as possibly still is, pressure for a massive public subsidy which would have been at the expense of potentially much more productive infrastructure investment.

20 mph - Jon Rogers says No to Officers

2009-11-07T10:15:00.006Z

Councillor Jon Rogers, Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability, has sent in a comment (below) on his council's 20 mph proposals which we've been covering extensively on this blog.

The most contentious issue is the number of streets to be excluded from the 20 mph coverage within the pilot areas, with the officers taking a predictably cautious approach with the exclusion of all streets which already have an average speed above 24 mph (so excluding the ones that most need calming).

Jon Roger's rejection of his officers' report and insistence on fewer exclusions represents a major showdown on a matter that Jon Rogers clearly feels very strongly about. Jon's comment -

Morning all

I would appreciate some help.

I have this week rejected the officer report on 20mph areas.

To be fair, they had added the following previously excluded roads to the list of 20mph roads...

Inner East Bristol:
Mina Road
Ashley Rd
Stapleton Rd (part) – between its junctions with Easton Way & Robertson Rd.

Inner South Bristol:
North St (part) – between its junctions with Dean Lane/Cannon St & Luckwell Rd
Dean Lane
Cannon Street
West Street
East St/Bedminster Parade.

I hope we all would agree to those.

However, officers had recommended that I reject residents calls for the following streets to be included as 20mph.

Inner East Bristol:
Whitehall Road
Easton Road
Church Road (western end)
Ashley Hill
Sussex Place
Sevier Street
James Street
York Street
Fishponds Rd (between junctions with Robertson Rd & Muller Rd)
Old Market
Pennywell Rd
Lamb Street/Lawfords Gate

Inner South Bristol:
St Luke’s Road
Greenway Bush Lane
North Street (between junctions with Luckwell Rd & Ashton Rd)
Ashton Road
Duckmoor Road
Luckwell Road
Smyth Road
Malago Road

I know very well and use regularly only the five in Ashley Ward...

Ashley Hill
Sussex Place
Sevier Street
James Street
York Street

I had previously emphasised (as Ashley ward councillor) to officers, that in my opinion, they should include all these 5 roads in the pilot (as well as Mina Road and Ashley Road, which they have supported).

This would mean that on entering Ashley ward, there would be a 20mph speed on ALL our residential roads. This could reduce the need for 20mph signs, limiting them to the entry roads, and perhaps reminders along the main routes.

I therefore, on the basis of what I know about Ashley ward, rejected the report.

However I can see that some of these roads should be kept at 30 mph, for example major bus routes or where the police have major concerns over enforcement.

What I need help on is the other roads. Does the same apply to them, or are officers right to recommend exclusion.

Comments?

Jon

View 20 mph in Bristol in a larger map

I've marked up the roads listed on my 20 mph map which you can get a better view of by clicking on it. The streets now accepted for inclusion are marked boldly in green (of course). Those remaining excluded (at 30 mph) are in red. The 20 mph pilot area boundaries are marked in blue.

So let's have your comments and freedback, particlularly for those areas in south Bristol and east Bristol that you know best.

Yet Another Cyclist Killed on the Streets of Cycling City.

2009-11-04T14:51:00.005Z

The Evening Post have just reported the death of the third cyclist to be killed on the streets of Bristol this year. A collision occurred on October 24th near the junction of Batten Road and Hillside Road in St George which resulted in critical injuries to the cyclist who subsequently died as a result of the injuries. This represents another blow for Cycling City which aims to encourage more people to cycle while doing little to make our streets safer.

View Larger Map

As yet little is publically known about the circumstances other than that the cyclist had emerged from the side road before being hit by a car, although the Police are already using prejudicial language like "the cyclist emerged without warning..." which rather begs the question of what 'warning' should be given. Nothing that I know of in the Highway Code that says you should give a warning before emerging from a side road. We look forward to an explanation for this bizarre language from the Police.

As always it is tempting but dangerous to speculate about the exact circumstances, but we do know that in the vast majority of instances of cyclists being killed a motor vehicle driving at excessive speed is involved. We also know that Hillside Road is one of those radial rat runs where speeding is endemic and where cyclists have been killed before. So it would be surprising if speed was not the crucial factor.

Quite simply it is the speed and weight (mass) of motor vehicles that creates the danger on our roads. A one tonne motor vehicle being driven at 32 mph has 100,000 Joules of kinetic energy compared to just 1,000 Joules of kinetic energy for a 100 kg cyclist riding at 10 mph. In most cases it is the massive force brought to bear by the motor vehicle that causes such life threatening injuries. Which is why it is so important that speed limits are bought down and effectively enforced, not just on side roads but on main roads like Hillside Road.

Later edit (6/11/09) - Police website report here.

Cycling City - Critical Mess

2009-10-31T22:17:00.012Z

Here's an amusing little quandary for Cllr Jon Rogers and Bristol's Cycling City leadership. They've just launched a new web site, called Better by Bike, as reported on on this blog back in September. Unlike previous Cycling City web sites this one is intended to allow a certain degree of public participation, at least in terms of posting details of forthcoming events and rides. No doubt this is in response to Jon Rogers' wish for the project to be more open and to embrace the wider cycling public.

But straightaway the principle of openness is put to the test. Someone has posted details of all the forthcoming Critical Mass bike rides on the Better by Bike events list. Now for those of you that don't know Critical Mass is pretty controversial since it involves a large group of cyclists completely taking over the section of roadway they are using, typically spreading out to occupy two or three traffic lanes to block any overtaking by motorists. To some extent this is a necessary tactic to keep the ride as one coherent body and not allow it to become fragmented.

Needless to say some of the motorists stuck behind a Critical Mass ride and reduced to a snail's pace for anything up to, what, a few minutes (shock, horror) don't appreciate this tactic and tend to express their frustration by illegal horn sounding and, given half a chance, aggressive overtaking. On occasion things can get nasty and violent confrontations have ensued, although that is certainly not the objective of Critical Mass. This facebook site gives more background to Bristol Critical Mass.

Like many cyclists I've always had mixed feelings about the event. It's good to get together with other cyclists once a month to enjoy that fabled 'safety in numbers' and to create a different kind of street culture for a couple of hours. But I've never been comfortable with the inevitable (?) confrontation with motorists. I know they bring the whole city to a standstill twice a day for 250 days of every year but even so I can't help wondering if aggravating them serves any useful purpose.

Anyway back to Jon Rogers and Cycling City. How are they going to react to discovering that they are using council resources to host details of such a controversial event as Critical Mass? Openness is all very well in theory but when it means advertising Critical Mass on a council web site even a liberal democrat like Jon Rogers might have second thoughts. My guess is that Critical Mass will be scrubbed from Better by Bike by noon on Monday.

Pics from Bristol Critical Mass summer 2009

Cycling City - Those Unofficial Conference Minutes.

2009-10-27T10:39:00.005Z

I wasn't able to attend yesterday's Cycling City conference - "Gaining Momentum" - due to a throat infection that I haven't shaken off yet. Uncontrolled violent coughing doesn't go down too well at such events. A pity really, judging from the rather critical Evening Post report. Normally one would expect any problems to be glossed over for such a public event but it seems that enough may have been said to substantiate a fairly negative article, even if the headline itself drifted off into speculation.

However a copy of the unofficial minutes have come my way (one of the few perks of being a blogger is the occasional and mysterious appearance of such things in one's inbox), apparently having been left behind on a table. Having read them I now suspect I got off likely. Whoever wrote these notes (and I genuinely have no idea who it was) is (a) brilliant (so all BCC's employees are in the clear) and (b) obviously had the conference scenario down to a tee so I suspect it wasn't his first, although it may be his last.

Cycling City conference Gaining Momentum

Cllr Dr Jon Rogers (Executive Member,Transport): (Welcome): You're all lovely! 3 cheers for Cycling City! I love you all, even the bloggers (shows slide of Green Bristol blog)...I love your friendly criticism! Traffic lights are green - lets go! Evening Post loves me now too! 3 cheers for Cycling City!

Jan Ormondroyd (Chief Executive Officer): (Opening remarks): I've got a bike! I'm all wobbly! 3 cheers for Cycling City! I want it!

Philip Darnton, Chairman, Cycling England: (Keynote address): 3 cheers for Cycling City! Why is Bristol so important to Cycling England? Because there are only four of us and our jobs depend on it! Now's the time to pull together! Its easy! Just spend all the money, and then tell us how much cycling has improved! You can do it! Oh yes you can! Oh YES you can! Pleaeeeese! I'm such as nice chap!

David Bishop (Strategic Director): 3 cheers for Cycling City! Yes we really want it. Oh yes we all do. We want a sustainable Bristol a congestion free Bristol and cycling so important - we mean to succeed, errm (looks at notes and sits down)

Hugh Annett (Director of Public Health): Cycling is healthy! 3 cheers for cycling!

Ed Plowden (Programme Manager): (breathlessly rushes on. we're doing this and this and this and this and this and this and we're going to do this and this and this and this and this (images flash by on screen). phew ! (mops brow); time for a cuppa!

Convenor: Now we'll have a pretend workshop. Talk to the people on your table about the things on the postcard for 45 minutes.

(45 mins later) - Convenor: Now wasn’t that fun. Next we have Silly Question Time. If you listened very carefully at the start you'll have heard me whisper that you should write your question on the card which is in your recyclable delegate bag with the free squeezy water bottle. I have 5 questions for the panel. First question is (reads card) ... ?????

Panel:David Bishop: 3 cheers for cycling city!

Convenor: Next question "Are you sure you've got the balance between hard and soft measures right???" Now that's a hard one.

Panel - Ed Plowden: Absolutely yes. My balance is fine. They've taken my stabilisers off! Watch me go down Gloucester Road! Wheeeee….!

Convenor: Next question is "Are you listening to the voices of experience???."

Philip: It's SO important that people with experience think they're being listened to.And everyone one else too. Listening is so important.

Convenor: Question: "Will you maintain the cycle paths???

Panel (Ed): That’s a good one - will we or won't we? The answer is we'll make them so they can be maintained. 3 cheers for cycling city!

Convenor: No more questions!

Philip Darnton: (winding up): This is such a great day! Now's the time to pull together! No more silly squabbling! Just do it! You'll be able to say to your grandchildren: Oh yes, I was there…...I was there when it all started at Gloucester County Cricket Club on Monday 26 October 2009...I heard the Chief Executive say "I want it!" 3 cheers for…………

(Here the notes end with mark of a broken pencil lead..)

It's Blame the Victims Time

2009-10-26T08:24:00.003Z

When the clocks go back in late October and we all find ourselves setting off home in the dark it's traditional to mark the change with a flurry of press releases trying to place the blame for road collisions and casualties firmly on the shoulders of the victims.

Here is one example of this autumn's crop from an organisation calling itself Road Safety GB, which was formerly unknown as the Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association, a bunch of career bureaucrats who have taken the concept of ineffectuality to new depths.

"Road Safety GB has launched a campaign to highlight the extent of the danger presented to children by the darker evenings that follow October’s clock change."

And that danger is? We're not exactly told, except that -

"The national campaign encourages children to wear bright, reflective clothing, especially for walks to and from school"

So the danger, it seems, arises from children behaving irresponsibly by wearing school uniforms or, even worse, fashionable and practical clothes on their way to and from school. Do Road Safety GB tell us why this should be so dangerous? Er no, it appears to be assumed that everyone 'knows' why wearing normal clothes is irresponsible and dangerous. All we get is a reiteration of the blame mantra -

"Be Bright, Be Seen’ places the responsibility on people of all ages to ensure children wear bright, reflective clothing.."

"...twice the number of child pedestrians were killed on the nation’s roads in November compared with October and December, while there is a 10% increase in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities...During the week, nearly 40% of all pedestrian casualties occur between 3pm and 6pm."

No mention of how our children are getting killed. Do they spontaneously combust perhaps? Or get struck by lightning? Or might it possibly have something to do with all those cars hurtling around, routinely breaking speed limits, jumping red lights, failing to stop at Zebras, driving on footways, chatting on mobiles, texting and generally fiddling with electronic devices rather than bothering to do anything as boring as actually looking where they're going?

No mention of cars or motor vehicles whatsoever in the Road Safety GB press release. No mention of speeding, no mention of the need to stop on red or at Zebra crossings, no mention of the dangers of driving on footways, chatting on mobiles, texting and all the rest. All we get is the subtlest hint, no more, of the possible involvement of motorists -

"...but Road Safety GB is also calling for adults and drivers to be more aware at this time of year....also on rush hour drivers to be especially watchful during their journeys, ensuring headlights are working correctly."

So what is it that 'adults and drivers' are supposed to be more aware of? Oh yes, that their headlights are working correctly. So it seems we 'adults and drivers' can carry on speeding, texting and chatting on mobiles to our hearts' content providing our headlights are working correctly. According to Road Safety GB these things are so insignificant as to be unworthy of even the slightest mention in a road safety press release and who are we to argue with these supine, self-serving pathetic parasites.

So motorists, when you're multi-tasking in your car, speeding along residential streets while chatting on your mobile, and some child gets in YOUR way and ends up a mangled, lifeless heap in the gutter, remember the Road Safety GB advice and be sure to check whether the child was wearing 'bright reflective clothing'. Unless your very unlucky the child won't be so you can rest assured that the blame is entirely theirs. As long as your headlights were working correctly of course.

Going Down

2009-10-16T13:36:00.003+01:00

While public lifts perform a valuable role in the wider world, acting not only as an encouragement to pedestrians and cyclists but also as major tourist attractions, as we see in pictures here from Lisbon (45 metres high) and Oregon (40 metres), here in Bristol, with its proud tradition of technical innovation and now Cycling City, even a modest suggestion for a 30 metre high public lift for cyclists and pedestrians to be built on the side of the unprepossessing Trenchard Street multi-storey car park is met with contempt.

However to his credit the City Council's Executive Member for Transport, Cllr Jon Rogers, has not joined in the popular derision but is, he says, keeping an open mind about the possibility. In fact he made some enquiries about the status quo with the existing Trenchard Street lifts which have been used by cyclists for decades as a way of avoiding slogging up the Park Street escarpment. He helpfully posted the reply he had from officers as a comment on yesterday's Evening Post Traffic Lights piece (in response to an earlier enquiry about why the "NCP car park on Park Row now prevented people - primarily the elderly and disabled from using their lifts") and it's worth a read -

"Trenchard Street Multi-Storey Car Park is serviced by three lifts. The original lift cars were constructed with the car park and are approximately 40 years old. We commenced a major refurbishment programme of the lifts in April 2009. Two of the lifts have now been fully refurbished and the third one should be completed by the end of November 2009. The cost of the refurbishment project is £340,000.

"The refurbishment of the lifts has been undertaken for the following reasons:

"There were health & safety concerns regarding the reliability of the lifts. The age, general wear and tear and vandalism of the lifts had resulted in a significant number of lift failures resulting in poor customer service, and unfortunately, an increasing number of more serious incidents of customers being trapped within the lifts causing distress and inconvenience.

"The increasing difficulty in maintaining the lifts and sourcing spares because of the age of the installation.

"The lifts failed to comply with the DDA 1995.

"It has been found that approximately 60% of the users of the old lifts in the car park were not people who were parking there. Instead they were pedestrians and cyclists who were using the lifts as a short cut between Trenchard St and Park Row. This practice had resulted in fee-paying customers either being delayed or, in some cases, being excluded from the lifts because of the space taken up by the bikes and other users. There were also incidents of customers having their clothes marked by oil and dirt from bikes. Usage of the lifts by non-customers has added significantly to running costs (maintenance and energy), as well as reducing the life of the lifts.

"In view of the above, it was decided that when the lifts were replaced the car park tickets would operate them, as this would improve the environment and service to our customers by reducing waiting times. Limiting their use to fee-paying car park users will also reduce future wear and tear to the lifts, and hopefully also reduce the amount of vandalism occurring. We should also benefit from reduced energy and maintenance costs.

"If we were to allow non-customers to use the lifts again this would counter the above benefits of the refurbishment project for the management of this car park.

"Arguably if we were to introduce a charge for using the lifts the associated additional maintenance and energy costs could be recovered but customer wait time would increase making it a less attractive car park for users. It would also be difficult and expensive to introduce a charging regime for non-car users. If a scheme of charging none car-park users were to be introduced we would once again encounter problems of lift overcrowding and the potential for customers to damage their clothing. On balance therefore it is believed that the current limitation on lift usage is appropriate.

Jon Rogers goes on to note in the comment that "The interesting thing about this response is that it does show a demand for the lift in Trenchard Street by cyclists, pedestrians, parents with buggies and disabled people who don't have a car parked there. This was part of the suggestion from Chris Hutt for a bicycle lift up the outside of the car park."

Indeed the officer reply informs us that the majority use of the lifts was by pedestrians and cyclists rather than motorists! Clearly such an intolerable situation could not be allowed to continue in Cycling City and they have now spent a substantial sum on a mechanism (above) specifically to deny the opportunity of using the lifts to mere cyclists and pedestrians. Need I say more?

It's Blog Wars

2009-10-14T10:26:00.005+01:00

My would-be Nemesis 'Dapper Dan' has obviously been encouraged by the unprecendented viewing figures his blog would have gained since I linked to it yesterday. He's warmed to his theme and has posted again explaining how I am a threat to the Cycling City project and with it Bristol chances of ever being a "true cycling city".

Dapper Dan seems to have a rather muddled and simplistic world view. If only, he says, we'd all rally around Cycling City and give it a chance, then perhaps in 30 years time something worthwhile might be achieved. Yes, he's actually saying that "Success .. won't be evident during the lifetime of Cycling City" which is pretty much the point I've been labouring over here. So he condemns my blog as negative and pessimistic yet agrees with the main thrust of my argument, contrary to all the Cycling City hype.

Dapper Dan argues that the views expressed here are not "representative". He says -

"I simply am not willing to believe that the majority share the one sided argument that (Mr Hutt) represents. Yes the Council gets it wrong. Yes the time frame for the delivery of the project is far too short. Yes the stated targets will probably be missed"

- so contradicting himself by showing that he agrees with my 'unrepresentative' observations.

Actually I think the general thrust of my views are probably quite 'representative' of a substantial proportion of cyclists, otherwise why would this blog have any credibility? Why would politicians and the media bother to follow it and comment on it if they thought it was only an oddball, isolated viewpoint? As it happens my Google Alerts trawl this morning picked up yet another blog commenting on Cycling City here. While I don't agree with all the detail I think the main thrust of it is pretty much along the lines I've pursued here. It's by no means unusual to come across similar views quite independently expressed.

You can read more over on Dapper Dan's blog, but I'd like to reproduce my comment here. It's a kind of cri-de-coeur, which I think is good to let forth now and again.

Dan, I didn't set the time scale or the budget or the targets for Cycling City. They were set by Cycling England and Bristol City Council (and South Glos). They were the ones who said they would double cycling in Bristol in less than three years and that provision for cycling would be transformed. They were the ones who made false claims about the funding levels and the extent of new infrastructure.

All I've done is point out that the Emperor has no clothes. I wasn't the one who took him for a fool and told him his clothes were magic and would be seen by everyone else but himself.

As you yourself appear to be agreeing Cycling City was ill conceived. I tried to point that out from the outset but most people were blinded by the £ signs and started fantasising about some golden age for cycling. Now the dismal reality of a long hard slog over decades is sinking in.

You say give it a chance to succeed. Well I did, starting about 30 years ago as it happens. I dedicated a large chunk of the prime of my life to trying to make things happen on the cycling front, with some limited success. But for the most part my efforts were rebuffed and I was left broken and financially ruined by the experience. That is what happens in the real world to anyone who attempts to promote radical change against powerful vested interests.

So you see why I am cynical today. I've seen how opportunists exploit the Cycling City concept for their own career ends, milking it while it lasts and then moving on to the next cause to be showered with taxpayers' money. These people do us no favours. Their focus is on their careers and pensions, not on putting their jobs on the line to force through difficult changes.

The thing I most regret about my earlier work was helping to establish the Cycling Project Team on Avon County Council. We had high hopes for them because we assumed they would be motivated like we were, putting cycling before all else. But they turned out to be career bureaucrats who always compromised the interests of cyclists to save their jobs. That's why we have so many tokenistic and ill-functioning cycle 'farcilities' around Bristol.

Why should we expect any better from Cycling City? We've seen enough to know that the same bureaucratic mentality prevails. We've seen enough to know that the interests of cyclists will again be compromised to perpetuate the bureaucracy. Just watch how the 20 mph idea, which actually has great potential, is being watered down by bureaucrats anxious not to create controversy. These are the ways of the world and the sooner people wake up to it the better.

Blogger Gets Some Stick

2009-10-13T08:27:00.002+01:00

I know my critical style isn't to everyone's liking but my critics rarely present anything resembling a rational argument against it, so it was interesting to find this in this morning's Google Alerts. 'Dapper Dan', who tells us little about his background or interests, obviously isn't a fan of Green Bristol Blog and doesn't hold back in making that clear.

There's a blogger out there that I don't think would be able to see anything in a positive light, who somehow manages to make even the sunshine seem gloomy. Yes I accept there may be a role of scrutiny in there somewhere, and yes, at times the Council can be crap but there must be better, or more constructive ways of criticism than this.

Somehow I knew he was talking about me even before I followed the links back to this site. I suppose it's gratifying to have confirmation that I'm making an impact, but I was a little disappointed that Dapper Dan's critique wasn't a bit more sophisticated.

Dapper Dan seems to think that we should be uncritically positive about whatever the council do without regard to the paucity of the reality on the ground, rather in the style of 'Pravda' in the former Soviet Union. It's hardly necessary to labour the point that this is not the British way of doing things, however much Dapper Dan (who with that attitude surely works for the council?) wishes it were.

I believe that there is a real danger of this country drifting towards 'statism', particularly under the impetus of the need to adapt to environmental concerns. Each step along such a path will consist of small, almost trivial steps but in time that's where it will lead.

Cycling City, as originally constituted, is one such step. From the outset it sought to exclude those of us who had years of practical experience of campaigning for cycling and place all the power with the apparatus and apparatchiks of the state, whether under the guise of Bristol City Council, Sustrans or Cycling England.

Such arrogance was bound to provoke a fierce reaction and I make no apologies for playing my part in that. Cycling has survived and even prospered not because of the actions of the state but despite the actions of the state. Even today we see the state at every level pouring massive subsidies into long distance motorised travel, so encouraging lifestyles which are increasingly unsustainable.

Against this we have pathetically tokenistic gestures like the £100 milion allocated to the Cycling Demonstration Towns. In terms of national expenditure on transport that is no more than the small change that one might toss to a beggar on the streets. And yet the Dapper Dans of this world think we should all be terrible grateful and positive. Who is the deluded one?

Another Council Cock-up

2009-10-12T10:58:00.005+01:00

It's sometimes seems that no weekend walk or cycle ride is complete without coming across at least one example of civic incompetence and last week-end was no exception. Down at the Hotwells end of the Floating Harbour the Junction Lock swing bridge, aka Merchants Road (shown in red below), was closed to road traffic including pedestrians to allow upgrading of the operating mechanism and other renovations to take place. So the only means of crossing the docks was at the other end of the Cumberland Basin, either via the Plimsoll Bridge (in green below) or the Entrance Lock gates.

View Cumberland Basin crossings in a larger map

For walkers that represents quite a big detour, over 500 metres, so what about providing a more direct alternative? The most obvious alternative (orange above) would be to use the walkway across the top of the new Stop Gates just 85 metres to the east and easily accessible and viewable from both sides of the closed bridge. So what do Bristol City Council do? They erect security fencing either side of the stop gates to prevent people crossing! After all we can't have people resolving their own problems in a simple, straightforward and inexpensive way because then we might start asking ourselves what we actually need the Council for.

Instead the Council concoct a complicated, obscure and expensive 'solution', by funding (with our taxes) a 'free' ferry to connect across the east end of the Junction Lock (blue above). The designated ferry landing stages are at the Pumphouse and the Nova Scotia, each about 100 metres from the closed bridge. But of course it's not possible to view one landing stage from the other, so where does the ferry wait? It waits on the opposite bank at the Cottage landing stage because from there it is just possible, with good eyesight, to view both of the designated ferry landing stages.

So there we have our expensive and complicated 'solution', but how to make it obscure? Now this is where Bristol City Council come into their own. Most of us would take it for granted that such an arrangement would require very careful signing to ensure that people arriving at the bridge to find it closed were made aware of the alternative arrangements, in particular the location of the ferry landing stages and the procedure for attracting the ferry. But not Bristol City Council. What is blindingly obvious to the rest of us simply doesn't occur to them.

The end result is total confusion - no official signing except a pathetically (and ungrammatically) improvised bit of wood jammed in the railings on one side of the bridge, "half of Bristol" scrambling around security fences to try to get across the stop gates, cyclists and pedestrians wandering around trying to find an alternative crossing, a ferry boat waiting forlornly at a remote location on the opposite bank trying to observe potential passengers at landing stages over 130 metres away and walkers looking at deserted ferry landing stages wondering if and when a ferry might arrive. Who but Bristol City Council could manage to oversee such a hopeless cock-up?

Where the real money goes #1

2009-10-06T11:25:00.004+01:00

Bristol City Council, who make so much of their aspirations for improving public transport, walking and cycling, are pressing ahead with plans to spend £40 million on a new road linking the A370 at Long Ashton with the A38 and the A4174 Hengrove Way. This will form another element of the Avon Ring Road and will increase the pressure for a further link between Hengrove Way and Hick's Gate on the A4 Bath Road where the Avon Ring Road currently terminates.

View Avon Ring Road in a larger map

To put the money in context £40 million is around 4 times the extra investment allocated to cycling for the whole of greater Bristol through the Cycling City project, which gives you a pretty good idea where their real priorities lie. This £40 million investment in new road infrastructure (£10 million per kilometre!) is just one of many planned and ongoing projects to increase the capacity to accommodate car traffic, which together add up to hundreds of millions of pounds of public investment. Such largesse in favour of the car allows major engineering works to be undertaken (e.g. the viaduct below), the kind of thing that is simply out of the question as far as cycling and walking are concerned.

Of course development of this scale never occurs in isolation and in this case it will be an integral part of the proposed Ashton Park 'urban extension' between Dundry and Long Ashton, which includes the proposed football stadium which is in turn dependent on a major new Tesco at Ashton Gate, or so we are told by the developer. Extra traffic generated by these developments, which include around 10,000 new homes, will probably more than offset the extra road capacity created so congestion is likely to continue to get worse.

Building road infrastructure just locks us even more rigidly into car dependence and makes a transition to a sustainable transport system even more difficult. Ring roads in particular encourage travel around the fringes of a city in patterns that are too dispersed to serve with public transport, walking and cycling. Public transport really only works on radial routes focussed on traditional city centres. Ring Roads undermine those patterns of movement so weakening the viability of existing public transport.

So what are Bristol City Council playing at? Do they have a coherent and sustainable transport policy or is it just a question of making gestures to cycling and walking while continuing with 'business-as-usual' aimed at perpetuating the unsustainable, car orientated growth of Bristol, even though few of us actually want that growth?

Later edit - Stockwood Pete has kindly supplied a link to the West of England Partnership report which the decision was based on . Also worth following up a Pete's earlier blog posts on this.

Laer still edit - The Bristol Blogger is back and has covered this issue too, in his inimitable style.

Total Twenty for Bristol

2009-09-30T13:46:00.003+01:00

Just a quick post to remind you all that today is the last day of the formal consultations on the proposed 20 mph pilot areas so please get your comments in if you haven't already (see here for details). But the campaign doesn't stop here so let's keep plugging away at local councillors and officers so that they know this issue isn't going to go away.

The big issue is not whether the pilots go ahead but whether they go ahead as Total Twenty areas where all residential streets are covered, or as timorous, tepid twenty/thirty areas where speed limits chop and change in a confusing way. The streets the officers want to keep as 30 mph are the streets where cyclists and pedestrians are in the most danger, have the most difficulty crossing and are subject to the most harassment. Leaving these streets unchanged renders the whole exercise largely pointless since the streets currently proposed for 20 mph already have speeds of that order anyway.

Many of us have questioned the need for Pilot schemes in the first place. We already know 20 mph areas of the sort proposed bring some benefits so what is there to trial? But what we don't know in detail is how much more might be achieved by a Total Twenty approach including all residential streets without exception. That would be something worth trialling, giving some purpose to the Pilot schemes. In the unlikely event that a Total Twenty approach turned out to be counter productive then something useful will have been learned.

And if Total Twenty proves to be an altogether better approach then that would surely be something that Bristol could be very proud of having pioneered. Bristol likes to think of itself as innovative and entreprising. Well here's a chance to prove it. After all what's the worst that could happen with Total Twenty? It's hardly likely to deliver worse conditions that we have with the 30 mph limit. If the city council can't find the courage to seize this opportunity to make a step change then they will show themselves truly deserving of the odium heaped upon them by certain bloggers.

Cycling City - Another Failed Website?

2009-09-29T09:01:00.001+01:00

Bristol's Cycling City project doesn't seem to have much luck with websites. For a start the Council's Cycling Portal rather ineptly lists the London Cycling Campaign as a 'related site' but makes no mention of the slightly more relevant Bristol Cycling Campaign. Geography fail I think. Then back in May a Cycling City blog was launched (facsimile) but was promptly pulled when they realised that readers were able to post public comments!

More recently we have been treated to a more elaborate (and no doubt expensive) effort called Cycle West which at least managed to list the local cycling groups rather than those in London. But we now hear that this too is to be pulled and replaced with a completely new site (yet more expense, but don't worry, it's only Cycling City money) under the Better by Bike banner. The new site is still under development but can be viewed in its present form here.

So what was wrong with Cycle West? We are told nothing of course but an educated guess would be that no one bothered to visit it because, basically, it's just a lot of them telling us what we should do and precious little of the vice versa. The overall approach is predictably patronising. Take for example the pictures used; almost every cyclist is shown wearing a helmet and a hi-viz jacket, conforming to the nanny-state's perception of cycling as a dangerous activity requiring their intervention to protect us.

Any blogger will tell you that what gets people engaged are interesting, provocative posts with the opportunity to respond publicly so setting in train debates that can roll on and on. Debate is vital since it allows ideas to emerge and be tested. Bristol we are told is a city of ideas, but despite the rhetoric the free expression of ideas is anathema to an overweening state as embodied in Bristol City Council.

Endless spending on new web sites in a futile attempt to find the magic bullet does seem to be endemic with government. If only they could understand that the magic bullet, as demonstrated by the success of the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook, is to provide a neutral forum to empower the people and enable them to take some control of their own destinies, but this of course is contrary to the basic instinct of government that nanny knows best.

Cycling is about individual freedom and risk taking, not something to be regimented and controlled by the state.

And what about this constant name changing? First we have Cycling City, but then Cycle West, now Better by Bike and who knows what next year. Is this good marketing? I'm no expert but I would have thought establishing a solid brand identity would be a high priority. The Council seem to be intent on endless confusion.

Green Bristol Blog on BBC Radio 4

2009-09-27T10:25:00.011+01:00

This Monday morning at 11 am Radio 4 are broadcasting a 30 minute programme looking at Bristol’s Cycling City project, based on interviews with local cyclists, including this blogger. The BBC site actually refers to interviews with “a couple of cycling visionaries who sense that a better world is within our grasp” – I wonder if I’m one of them? The presenter and interviewer Miles Warde is a regular cyclist and asked some very pertinent questions so it should be informed and interesting.

I expect there will be positive and negative opinions expressed and, judging by this nicely written piece by producer Christine Hall, one of the more positive ones will relate to the subsidised cycle training being provided by LifeCycle.

This training is receiving hefty Cycling City subsidies, £25 for each first one hour session, leaving the trainee to pay just £5 for a session supposedly worth £30. However the existing subsidy budget (£25,000) allows for just 1,000 people (see * below) to receive the subsidised first training session. Not many in relation to the numbers who appear to need some educating about their cycling-in-traffic technique if my experience is anything to go by.

As is often the way with state subsidies this one tends to redistribute wealth in favour of the wealthy since the training sessions are disproportionately taken up by the relatively affluent middle classes. It’s also inefficient as most of the middle class beneficiaries are quite capable of getting much the same guidance on cycling techniques from books, magazines or the internet without the need for public subsidies. And as we see again and again with Cycling City the funds are channeled into schemes that just happen to create jobs for the boys and girls.

Later edits.

Radio 4 - Bristol: Cycling City - iplayer here and MP3 recording available here

Also this provocative blog post by Mike A, a former Bristol cycling campaigner, in response to the programme. He makes his points quite independently of me in case anyone suspects collusion.

And another blogger comments here.

* A comment made below corrects my figures. In fact £10,000 of Cycling City money provides £25 subsidies for the first training sessions of 400 people.

Why Solve it when you can Sign it?

2009-09-23T08:53:00.003+01:00

With Cycling City money being diverted to fund such frivolities as the Bristol Do and other manifestations of the 'bread and circuses' approach to promoting political apathy, anything as mundane as an actual cycle route is likely to suffer from neglect.

Here we have what would, in a true Cycling City, be one of the most prestiguous cycle routes - the old River Avon towpath between Bristol and Bath. Some sections near Crew's Hole have been upgraded but from Conham to Hanham and beyond it remains largely unsurfaced, often overgrown and in places difficult even to walk.

For the most part the outstanding problems are quite minor like these potholes that collect water and untrimmed vegetation. Not beyond the wit of man to solve you might think, especially with the help of an alleged £23 million of Cycling City money. After all this riverside route has great potential as a strategic route linking Keynsham to Bristol and connecting on to the Railway Path at Bitton to provide an attractive alternative Bristol to Bath cycle route (see map below). Surely just the sort of thing that a Cycling City project should give high priority?

View River Avon - Netham to Keynsham and Bitton in a larger map

But in this case the 'wit of man' is the wit of one of those useless bureaucrats who much prefer to erect warning signs than actually fix problems. And what a thorough job he's done of it. Can there be any category of human activity or any class of risk not accounted for? Bristol City Council must be proud of such a comprehensive piece of arse covering. Whatever kind of accident you might contrive to have, it's your fault because you were warned. Job done.

Curiously our 'man' seems to have lost his wits when it came to the signs to discourage, if that is the word, cycling and horseriding. The red circle always signifies a prohition, so a red circle around a bicycle means no cycling. But the diagonal red bar could be taken as a negation of the message, so 'no no cycling'? So to be unambiguous our man spells it out underneath - no cycling. But then adds the word 'advisory'. So that's perfectly clear then, er, just ignore the signs.

If only the time and money that was spent on these ridiculous signs had been allocated to sorting out some of the actual problems. But that would require a bit of common sense and a willingness to get one's hands dirty, both of which appear to be in short supply in Bristol City Council. Perhaps if we organised some pothole filling as an 'international art work' or a 'multi-cultural celebration' they might be willing to allocate some resources. How about the Conham Caper, or Rider Broke? But should we apply for the Arts Council grant first or the Cycling City grant?

Spending the Cycling City Millions #2

2009-09-22T05:27:00.008+01:00

While those of us doing serious work on identifying and promoting opportunities to enhance cycling remain very much out in the cold, it seems any project that touches on the more frivolous side of cycling will be showered with Cycling City money. Cycling City's 'Better by Bike' logo crops up attached to all sorts of events, including for example the New Cut celebrations in May and this weekend's Bristol Do, signifying yet another beneficiary of the funds that were supposed to be spent on 'cycling'.

One of the Cycling City funded elements of the Bristol Do is Rider Spoke, a work by Blast Theory, currently, er, happening down at the Arnolfini. It involves people actually going out on bicycle rides around the city, so really edgy stuff. Of course some of us have been doing that sort of thing for decades, but now, thanks to the munificence of Cycling City, we know that we have in fact been performing a work of art! Now where do I go for my Arts Council grant?

I'm told by people who have participated in Rider Spoke that it's 'great fun' and well worth the nominal £4 charge. I did wander into the Arnolfini yesterday to ask in my querulous way "What's the point of it?" and was told "It's a work of art" which I guess answers the question. Of course they had no idea what the whole thing was costing us (why should they care?) but judging by all the earnest young men with expensive looking laptops and the array of smart bikes for the use of participants I guess Rider Spoke doesn't come cheap.

I've nothing against 'art' per se but I don't see why it can't be funded by the consumers of it, where practical, in the same way as say 'housing' or 'transport' or 'food' is, not to mention most mainstream entertainment. In the case of Rider Spoke a nominal charge is payable anyway so why can't it be based on the real costs? Because people would baulk at paying that much? Perhaps then it doesn't actually represent value for money, in which case is it worth doing?

Another aspect one might ponder is the environmental impact of such 'works of art'. Rider Spoke is currently touring Europe and has recently completed 4 days in Copenhagen and a week in Linz. You can guess that such a tour generates plenty of air travel and the bicycles have to be trucked thousands of miles. Does anybody bother to do an environmental impact assessment for such things? And if they do, might we the paying public be allowed to know what it is?

Anyway here's a Blast Theory video to give their side of the story (although don't expect it to reveal anything as sordid as the public subsidy involved).

Twenty's Plenty Needs You

2009-09-19T11:05:00.012+01:00

I know I covered this just two weeks ago but this is IMPORTANT and needs action from all of us. As you may have noticed I'm generally pretty cynical about what Bristol City Council do in the name of sustainable transport and in this case too they are set to make a fundamental error. But this time it really matters because the 20 mph concept is our best chance, perhaps our only chance, of making a real change to the character of our streets so that ultimately they are no longer thought of as inherently dangerous places for people on foot or on bicycles.

The A420 Church Road, 20 mph in Redfield, Bristol.

As I explained before the main issue is the proposed exclusion of so many streets within the proposed 20 mph pilot areas. We know that the highway engineers are generally hostile to the idea of 20 mph areas and I suspect the proliferation of excluded streets is their way of undermining the scheme. We also know that some Councillors, notably Executive Member Jon Rogers, are very keen to get 20 mph implemented and he is on record as being unhappy with the number of excluded streets.

Now you may think 'why doesn't Jon Rogers, our elected representative, just tell the officers to cut the excluded streets?'. Well it seems that the levers of power aren't that simple or direct. He cannot do this alone and needs our support. We need to demonstrate the extent of popular support for the 20 mph concept and opposition to the excluded roads. And we need to do it by the end of this month when the formal consultation comes to an end.

One of our allies in this is George Ferguson, whose 'By George' column in today's Evening Post makes the case very well. I know I've had a pop at George on many occasions but that's just the iconoclast in me. In mostly makes a lot of sense and makes it very eloquently, especially in this case. To quote a few salient points from George's piece:-

"Having given the (20 mph) area a clear boundary, the document then complicates the issue by suggesting leaving certain routes through the area at the current 30mph limit. The fact is that these key routes are also key cycling and walking routes, and go past some of the seven primary schools within the area.

The trouble with traffic measures is that they are generally planned by highway engineers, who – however well-meaning – tend to think in terms of roads and traffic flow, and have very different criteria from those of us who occupy the streets for shopping and walking to school or to work and who regard them as social territory."

Great stuff. But we need more support and that means YOU. I know, we're all busy, etc. So I'm going to make it easy. Below is my own submission. Please use it as a template for your own comments. Delete anything you're uncomfortable with, add anything you think is missing, but PLEASE send something to 20mph@bristol.gov.uk (and copy it to Jon Rogers and your local councillors) and please do it now.

I strongly support the general principle of 20 mph as the general speed limit for all residential and shopping areas in Bristol.

The benefits are numerous, including of course less danger and intimidation of pedestrians and cyclists, easier and safer crossing of streets, less noise and pollution, less stress and even less traffic. The costs could be minimal if signing were kept to a minimum.

I would like to see the introduction of 20 mph over the whole of Bristol's residential areas, or at the very least the whole inner city where streets are generally narrower and/or heavily parked. I do not see the point in limiting it to two pilot areas since this increases the perimeter to area ratio so requiring more signing at more public expense for a given area.

However the major flaw in the current proposals is that the pilot areas have 'excluded' streets. In most cases these are the streets which most need lower speeds, where danger and intimidation is greatest, where most crossing movements take place, where people shop, walk and cycle, where schools are accessed and where noise, pollution and stress are greatest.

Excluding these streets will totally undermine the stated purpose of the 20 mph scheme. It will greatly increase the amount of signing required and hence the cost of the scheme and it will the create confusion by making it unclear whether a particular street is 20 mph or 30 mph without constant reference to signs which is impractical and a dangerous distraction in urban areas.

Apart from clearly non-residential roads like Easton Way there should be no exclusions within the 20 mph areas. In practice actual speeds will vary around the 20 mph mark according to local conditions, as they should, and on some streets the average may be significantly higher, but even speeds slightly above 20 mph will be a big improvement on speeds slightly above 30 mph.

Getting the 20 mph scheme right is of fundamental importance for the credibility of Cycling City, the Council's Walking Strategy and indeed the Council's overall 'Green' aspirations. The current proposals with the excluded streets have already been widely criticised and there can be little doubt that a 20 mph based on the current proposals will be seen as a failure of nerve on the part of the Council.

Belgrade 1, Bristol 0

2009-09-16T13:04:00.009+01:00

It seems that Belgrade has already beaten Bristol to it on the Bike Lift front. As the picture below shows the Serbs, despite their reputation for intransigence, don't seem to be quite so hostile to new ideas as we Bristolians. This bicycle lift has been erected alongside the 'Brankova' crossing of the River Sava to allow cyclists to avoid a long detour on busy roads. Actually it took 8 years of campaigning by a dedicated individual, one Mirko Radovanac, to get it built, so perhaps if I persist we may have a bike lift in Bristol by 2017.

Not many details are available on the internet but it looks like the Belgrade lift rises about 15 metres to the bridge deck level, half the rise of the one proposed for Trenchard Street, so perhaps Bristol could still become the home of the highest dedicated bike lift in the World. The Belgrade lift gives some idea of how a Bristol lift could look and work, with entrance and exit doors on opposite sides so bicycles do not need to be turned in the lift. A 30 metre rise version could look quite spectacular.

Pedestrians as well as cyclists can benefit from such lifts, especially those with mobility problems, carrying shopping or with pushchairs. A lift is in effect just another element of a public transport system, providing a vertical rather than a horizontal displacement. Quite apart from the utility of such lifts they act as symbols of the seriousness with which non-motorised travel is taken and the value given to cyclists' and pedestrians' journeys. I wonder if Bristol is ready for such a culture shift?

The Brankova Bridge, Belgrade. Bike lift is just visible on extreme left.

Early indications are that our Cycling City still needs a few more decades to get used to the idea that serious investment in transport links for cyclists might be justified. Although Executive Member for Transport Jon Roger's has said the idea is "interesting" and that he is "prepared to consider all options, look at all ideas" there has been no further indication of interest from Bristol City Council.

Adios Josh Hart

2009-09-15T12:49:00.010+01:00

Another valedictory, this time to Josh Hart who is about to leave our little island for his hometown of San Francisco, travelling entirely by surface public transport as a gesture against the hegemony of the plane and car. His arrival from San Francisco some three years ago by the same means made quite a splash with the media. But he had serious work to do at UWE and undertook valuable research replicating an earlier study (coincidentally carried out by an Englishman, Appleyard, in San Francisco 40 years ago) into the deleterious effect of high traffic levels on social contact between neighbours.

As well as undertaking the two year UWE course Josh has been very active in local and national environmental campaigns (as a google search will confirm), has maintained an excellent blog, On the Level, and has helped revitalise the Bristol Cycling Campaign. He has impressed us all with his typically American 'can do' attitude and has been inspirational as a public speaker, which he demonstrated again last Friday with his speakers' corner spot at the Arnolfini (above) and on many occasions when addressing politicians and local government officers, as in this video.

We hope to see him again in Bristol before too long, but who knows. It's not easy being committed to change and uncompromising in working for it. He has just completed a stint with Living Streets (formerly the Pedestrians Association) where he has done much to promote local groups but has clearly found it difficult to accept the 'don't bite the hand that feeds' culture of an organisation that seems to have been 'Sustrans-ised', abandoning cutting-edge campaigning for more lucrative work as in effect a government agency.

We can at least be confident that Josh will continue to make a big impact where ever he goes, an animated voice in defence of both the delicate environmental systems that underpin our survival and the weakest members of society. We all wish him well and will be following his exploits with interest via his blog which he has promised to continue.

Another Day - Another Victim

2009-09-14T08:47:00.006+01:00

In a depressingly familiar pattern we find the aftermath of a conflict between car and bike, down where Prince Street joins Broad Quay, yesterday afternoon. Thankfully the cyclist appeared to suffer only slight injuries although his bicycle was mangled. The car involved is the white Citroen Xantia N881 WAN between the red and blue tee-shirts. Most of those standing around appear to be witnesses who were good enough to give statements to the police, who turned up promptly, shortly after the paramedic.

I didn't witness the actual incident and I'm not going to speculate about what might have happened beyond what is evidenced by these pictures. We see for example scrape marks on the road surface and some debris (where the bicycle was lying before being moved to the side), suggesting that the bicycle might have been pushed along under the front of the car, consistent with the observed bike and car damage. The police took details from witnesses and the parties involved (the cyclist in the dark tee-shirt and grey trousers; driver in red tee-shirt and blue baseball cap) and will, we must hope, take any appropriate action.

The scene was particularly poignant for me since I had been the victim of a road rage attack just two days earlier at Redland Grove when a motorist harassed me very aggressively, horn blaring just behind me and finally accelerating past at high speed, engine roaring, black smoke belching out, just inches away. I could easily have ended up as the cyclist above or much worse. My crime incidentally was getting in HIS way, the one he and his fellow motorists pay for and on which we cyclists apparently have no right to be.

Needless to say incidents like these are extremely damaging to the prospects for popularising cycling. Individual cyclists often give up cycling as a result of being the victims of such conflict and of course all those who observe such incidents will be dissuaded from considering cycling. So what is to be done? Some argue that increasing cycling numbers will change attitudes and lead to a more tolerant attitude on the part of motorists. But, catch 22, how can we expect to increase cycling in the face of such violence? Suggestions welcome below....

It's That Bridge Again

2009-09-13T11:30:00.008+01:00

It looks like Bristol City Council may be getting something half-right down at Prince Street Bridge. The ugly concrete kerbs than restrict access to the cycle/pedestrian half of the bridge were removed for last week's Bristol half marathon, as they had been for the 10k run in May, when I blogged with my expectation that -

"bollards will be installed instead (of the concrete kerbs) which will allow cyclists to percolate through the closures instead of being funnelled into narrow, sub-standard gaps by the footway."

I was soon disillusioned back in May when the concrete kerbs went back in, suitably embellished by a member of the public with "cycling city - my arse". A long debate with Jon Rogers followed in the comments on that blog post in which he said

"the decision on the Prince Street Bridge trial should not be made purely on the basis of 'Hutt rants', informed though they often are, but be evidence based and follow the planned site visit".

Well it seems that a decision has been made that my 'rants' may have influenced because they're now putting in bollards instead of kerbs as I anticipated in May.

Of course I must quibble with it.

Why do we need any bollards at all on the north side where motor vehicles would not normally enter the right half of the bridge anyway?
Why are the bollards painted black so as to be difficult to see in conditions of poor visibility (when we cyclists are encouraged to wear high viz clothing and the bollards on the motorists' side are brightly painted in red and white stripes)?
Why is no specific provision made to help cyclists who need to switch back to the left hand side of Wapping Road?
Why weren't cycling interests consulted on the changes?
What was the 'evidence basis' for the decision?

But at least it is progress of a sort. Cyclists can percolate through the bollards and so have more options for making the difficult manoeuvres required when travelling south as a result of the Cycling City funded changes. However there remain concerns about the capacity of the bridge to cope with the growing volume of cyclists and pedestrians together with motor traffic. We urgently need to send some strong signals out about changing priorities and a complete closure of Prince Street Bridge to motor traffic would help that.

Banksy Costs Lives

2009-09-11T10:28:00.008+01:00

A final valedictory to my bête noire, the Banksy queue. We are told some 300,000 people visited Banksy vs Bristol Museum over the summer, most queuing for several hours in a serpentine column stretching up University Road and along Elmdale Road. Of course the Great and the Good didn't have to queue, either getting invited to private viewings if well connected or paying £25 a head to attend a special 'charity' viewing, but assuming the average Joe queued for say 3 hrs then the total time wasted in the queue was 900,000 hours, or 37,500 days, or over 100 years.

We can equate 100 years of wasted time to human lives. Average life expectancy is say 80 years (78 for men, 82 for women), although about a third of that is spent sleeping and the quality of the last 5 years or so may be very poor so we could equate a life to say 50 years of 'quality' time. One might of course argue about the quality of our waking lives, since much of the time is devoted to routine tasks that give little satisfaction in themselves, but let's leave that for another time.

So we can equate the time wasted in the Banksy queue to two complete human lives from birth to death. However few of those queuing were new born babes so we should take account of the average age of those queuing to establish a better life equivalent. Let's say the average age of visitors was around 30 and the average 30 year old can expect another 45 years overall of quality life, less one third sleeping gives net 30 years of quality life. So the time wasted in the queue was equivalent to more than 3 of the residual lives of those queuing. In short we can say the queue cost three lives.

Two weeks ago the Police closed the northbound side of the M5 Avonmouth Bridge to traffic for more than 6 hours because a man was threatening to jump from the bridge to his death, which he eventually did. The Police argued that the delay to motorway travellers was justified by the need to attempt to save the man's life and for the safety of those involved. But what of the life equivalence of the time wasted in the resulting massive traffic jam?

According to reports the traffic queue stretched back 35 miles to Bridgewater and many roads in and around Bristol were gridlocked as drivers tried to find avoiding routes. Difficult to estimate numbers involved but 35 miles (56 kms) of three lane motorway could accommodate around 33,600 stationery vehicles (5 metres per vehicle). Let's say that as it was a Bank Holiday weekend average vehicle occupancy was around 2.5 people so that gives us over 500,000 hours wasted. We can probably double that to take account of delays on the highway network beyond.

In effect the police decided to waste over 100 years of life, the complete residual lives of several people, in an attempt to save the residual life of a man of about my age, who on average one would expect to have little more than 10 years of potential quality waking life left. So the equivalent of ten 59 year old male lives were lost in a forlorn attempt to save one. It just doesn't add up and it looks as if the Police are beginning to realise what a major error of judgement they made.

In the same way Banksy and Bristol City Council decided to waste the residual lives of at least 3 people rather than charge for entry to Banksy vs Bristol Museum, a charge which might well have generated £5 million or more resulting in correspondingly lower Council Tax bills for all of us. What's more by eliminating significant queuing by charging a market rate entrance fee the hundreds of thousands of visitors to Bristol would have been freed from the captivity of the queue and able to spend more time visiting other attractions and would therefore have spent more money on goods and services in the city.

As they say, to err is human but to really screw things up you need a self-serving bureaucracy with a chronically risk-averse and economically illiterate culture. Or Banksy.

Twenty's Plenty for Bristol

2009-09-05T09:55:00.001+01:00

Bristol City Council have announced plans to trial a widespread 20 mph speed limit in two areas of the inner city, centred on Easton and Southville as shown in the map below bounded by the blue lines. Consultation on the general arrangements takes place this month but there will be an opportunity to object to specific Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) when these are subsequently put forward. Implementation is planned for next spring. The plans were actually leaked back in January and the current proposals are much the same as those shown on the leaked maps.

View 20 mph in Bristol in a larger map

The idea is that 20 mph should replace 30 mph as the normal, default speed limit in residential areas of the city although without the introduction of physical traffic calming measures or police enforcement. Some people have expressed scepticism about the effectiveness in the absence of such enforcing measures but experience elsewhere suggests that average speeds will be slightly reduced as a consequence of changing the notional limit. Nevertheless the idea seems surprisingly popular with the general population so very much an idea whose time has come.

But there is, predictably, a major problem with the current proposals, leaving aside the enforcement issue. The plans exclude most main roads in the areas concerned (red lines in the map above), even when those main roads are also shopping streets, designated cycle routes and serve schools and parks. Precisely the sorts of roads that most need to have lower speed limits. The two most glaring examples are perhaps Mina Road in St Werburgh's and Dean Lane in Southville, but there are many others like North Street (Southville) and Stapleton Road (Easton), both important shopping streets that serve as focuses (or foci if you like) for their respective communities.

So what is the big problem about applying 20 mph limits to main roads? It's actually been tried and tested here in Bristol with a short stretch of the A420 Church Road in Redfield (pictured above and shown as a green line on the map). Admittedly it's not very obvious that it makes much difference, but then it is still the exception to the general 30 mph rule and unlikely to be taken much notice of. But at least it establishes that 20 mph on main roads in residential and shopping areas does not bring the world grinding to a halt. Everything carries on much the same but with speeds gradually edging downwards.

Another big problem with having so many streets excluded is the need to sign all the transitions from 30 to 20 and back, as pictured above with the existing 20 mph zone just south of Church Road. Not only do all the signs cost us money but they add to the general clutter on our streets and result in road users losing track of whether they are in a 20 mph or 30 mph street.

What we need is for 20 mph to replace 30 mph as the general speed limit on all urban streets except those roads that are clearly not residential like Easton Way, the Portway and of course the M32. The 20 mph default needs to be consistent and ubiquitous and not something confined to backwaters where speeds rarely exceed 20 mph by much anyway. The current propsals, even though claimed to benefit cyclists and pedestrians and to be funded by Cycling City money, will do little for cyclists or pedestrians where they experience the most intimidation and danger, on the main roads which are set to be excluded.

Pedestrians Cause Congestion - Official

2009-09-03T11:33:00.006+01:00

Now and again little insights into the 'thinking' of Bristol City Council's highway engineers emerge into the public realm, despite the ever burgeoning PR operation designed to make us all think the council are wonderful. This latest gem emerges through the Cycling City project's marginally more open governance arrangements (which perhaps explains why council officers are generally opposed to more openness).

Bristol's pedestrian crossings (Pelicans and Puffins) have long been notorious for the excessive delays that they impose on pedestrians wanting to cross the road in order to minimise the inconvenience to motorists. For example the crossing of Queen's Road outside the Museum (above) gives a ridiculously short green phase and the crossing of Baldwin St where it joins the Centre (below) imposes long delays.

But now a City Council project is underway to review each pedestrian crossing in Bristol and reduce the wait times for pedestrians "without causing unacceptable congestion for traffic". Despite the lack of any definition of what constitutes 'unacceptable congestion for traffic' (and aren't pedestrians 'traffic' too?) the progress report on the pedestrian crossings 'improvement' project goes on to state -

During times of peak traffic flow, some pedestrian crossings in the city cause heavy congestion, therefore they are brought onto the traffic control system ‘Scoot’ during these times of day so that the ‘green man’ time which causes the congestion is restricted to the part of the traffic signal cycle where it will cause the least delay. This project has reviewed the way that the crossings are brought under scoot control and the times of day this control is needed. The pedestrian crossings reviewed are now brought under control by using live traffic flow data rather than fixed times, the flow level at which the crossings cause congestion has been worked out for each site, and when this trigger level is reached they are brought under Scoot control until the traffic flow level drops off again. The type of Scoot control in use has also been reviewed and where possible the cycle times for the crossings have been reduced.

As the bold text indicates I was struck by the repeated assumption that it's pedestrians who are causing congestion by daring to want to cross roads. Is it not plain to anyone with eyes to see that congestion is caused by the mass use of cars? Congestion, whilst not entirely unknown before the age of mass car ownership, is nevertheless overwhelmingly a product of it. Surely that elementary fact should be firmly embedded in the mind of anyone who presumes to call themselves a highway engineer.

Yet there we have it, they say pedestrians cause congestion. And to penalise us for our selfish behaviour in wanting to cross roads we must be made to face longer delays to allow motorists to make their blameless journeys without 'unacceptable' delays. Nothing of course about what might or might not be acceptable delays to pedestrians. We pedestrians, it seems, must put up and shut up.

Am I being uncharitable in making so much of what may be little more than sloppy writing? Probably, but I would say justifiably so since at the root of so many traffic problems is the pro-car biased thinking of highway engineers, which as we see remains very much the norm. Perhaps we have to wait for yet another generation of highway engineers to pass on before we can make real progress.

A Bike Lift for Bristol?

2009-08-31T11:42:00.016+01:00

As we all know only too well the hilliness of Bristol is a deterrent to cycling, especially for those considering cycling for commuting or utility purposes where getting from A to B sometimes means being confronted with quite a climb, around 30 metres at a gradient of 1 in 10 (10%) just to get up Park Street for example.

There are one or two other routes that give an easier climb of the Clifton - Kingsdown escarpment but they tend to be indirect and not at all obvious to the novice. For example climbing from the Centre to Queen's Road via Colston St and Park Row will give you a 40 metre vertical climb at a gentler average gradient of less than 1 in 20 (5%) and with just an extra 40% of horizontal travel compared to College Green/Park St.

But even long climbs at 5% gradient are off-putting to many potential cyclists so we need a bit of lateral thinking. Bike Lifts have been suggested before but no one has really identified a practical location for one (Park Street being far too complicated a location for anything like the Trampe). So this is by way of #7 in my 'Cycling City - Constructive Suggestions' series (more to come when I find the time) - a Bike Lift based on that fine examplar of the spirit of Bristol, the Trenchard Street multi storey car park.

Cyclists have been known to use the existing lifts in the Trenchard Street multi storey for decades but such makeshift arrangements are far from satisfactory. The existing lifts are difficult to access, too small and of course in some demand by legitimate car park users (who one has to admit do pay for them). Indeed one of the two lifts has recently been refurbished so that it can only be operated by someone with a parking permit or ticket (presumably to stop cyclists and others freeloading).

So I'm suggesting a new lift of the external variety attached to the structure on the south west elevation of the multi storey car park and linking the bottom of Trenchard Street (where the ground is level with the Centre) exclusively with level 8 of the multi storey which has a direct, level access onto Park Row (below) just above the Red Lodge and not far below its summit level. The height gained would be nearly 30 metres, about the same as climbing Park Street!

A new lift could be designed as a linked pair so that one lift cubicle was always down when the other was up to minimise delays. Intermediate levels would not be served, just Denmark St level and Park Row level, so accent would be rapid and direct. Entry and exit doors could be on opposite sides so bikes wouldn't need to be turned. The lift cubicles could be light and spacious giving some quite impressive views.

Of course such an installation wouldn't be cheap but I believe it could prove very popular with cyclists (and others who find climbing Park Street daunting) who would suddenly find that the Clifton - Kingsdown escarpment was no longer a major deterrent. Perhaps it might go some way towards changing the image of cycling in Bristol as something exclusively for the Lycra-clad super-fit.

The map below shows some of the principal cycle routes that could link to a Trenchard St Bike Lift. On the high side Queen's Road, Whiteladies Road and the University campus would become much more accessible and even the heights of Kingsdown and Cotham could be accessed with a further climb up Woodland Road. On the low side the main core of the city could access the Bike Lift via Denmark St (how apposite!) from the Centre and via Frogmore Street from the Hotwell Road direction.

View Trenchard St Bike Lift in a larger map

The Trenchard Street multi storey is owned and operated by the Council so there shouldn't be any fundamental problem in installing such a Bike Lift, given that the cost, Cycling England willing, could be met from the Cycling City budget. Apart from the benefits to cyclists and pedestrians the addition of a smart new external lift could be part of a much needed makeover of the multi storey, which must rank as one of Bristol's most depressing buildings.

Bristol City Council has the chance to take a lead with this, but they'd better hurry because other cities have bold visions for the future, such as Seoul with this (above) planned bicycle elevator. For Bristol this really could be the iconic symbol of a genuine move towards being a Cycling City and perhaps the world's first and best example of a bicycle lift forming a key part of a city's cycling infrastructure. So let's see what excuses Cycling City manage to come up with for not pursuing this one.

Banksy versus Cycling City

2009-08-30T08:20:00.007+01:00

Banksy is an enigmatic character full of surprises, his works appearing unexpectedly and in unlikely locations. So perhaps we should all keep our eyes open for those incongruous interventions in our familiar urban environment which might just turn out to be examples of the maestro's work. Here for example is one of Cycling City's prime cycle routes through St Philips, a former traffic route now closed to motor vehicles. But what are these recent additions to the ubiquitous concrete kerbs and bollards?

Could what may at first sight appear to be a random collection of discarded tyres, pallets and assorted rubbish be the work of the master prankster himself? There is something strangely engaging about the distribution of the detritus, something that speaks to us of our inner contradictions and the social and environmental dysfunction that empitomises them. Subtle yet telling, the work catches us unawares as we pass by on our daily travels. Whether it is a work of Banksy himself or perhaps a younger pretender I do not know, but there is no doubting the genius of the creator.

Silverthorne Lane - anonymous (Banksy?) work (detail)

The appearance of this new work creates yet another dilemma for our beleaguered City Council. Whether to treat this as just another case of anti-social fly tipping and have the 'clean and green' brigade sweep it all away to oblivion or to recognise the underlying genius and indeed the potential of this work to bring a much needed economic boost to a deprived area. Perhaps this is something they should consult the public on, as they did over whether or not to remove the Banksy on Park Street. Otherwise on their heads be it if they make the wrong decision.

View Banksies in Bristol in a larger map

Another Ghost Bike for Bristol

2009-08-15T09:28:00.007+01:00

We now have details of the cyclist killed on Tuesday as a result of a collision with a van at the junction of Winterstoke Road with Brunel Way (below). He was 52 year old Bristol University professor Stephen Morris from Backwell. The Evening Post report gives us some idea of the tragic consequences of such an untimely death on the victims family, friends and work colleagues, especially close family members who suddenly find themselves without a partner or father.

View Cycle and ped injury incidents in a larger map

This is the second cyclist death in Bristol this year and there have been others on the urban fringe beyond the Council's boundaries including one on this same road (A370) at the other end of the Long Ashton bypass last December. We should not of course speculate about the causes of this collision and consequent death when so little information is available to us. However it is I think appropriate, while minds are focused on this tragic event, to note certain circumstances which may or may not turn out to be contributory factors.

The most obvious point to note is that, in common with the most other cyclist deaths, this occurred on a road with a higher speed limit than 30mph, in this case 40mph. In practice that means that speeds significantly above 40 mph are normal and largely tolerated by the authorities. Such speeds are simply incompatible with safe cycling. Where cyclists have no practical alternative but to share such roads a 30 mph limit would be more appropriate and might possibly have avoided this latest tragic death.

Sustrans have cobbled together some plans for a convoluted alternative cycle route which is now being developed by Cycling City but the route proposed will be of little use to utility cyclists and commuters who want to follow a fairly direct and fast route. So let's not accept for one minute that Sustrans type 'recreational' routes are any sort of solution to the problem of excessive speeds on main roads. Besides we've already waited 30 years for new infrastructure and the highway engineers have consistently failed us. We need determined action on excessive speeds now before more cyclists are killed. Two Ghost Bikes in Cycling City are enough.

Tribute to Nick Abraham, 29, killed by a motorist while cycling on the Portway in January this year.

Carnage in Cycling City

2009-08-13T07:58:00.009+01:00

Almost every day there seems to be another report of cyclists being injured by vans and lorries here in Cycling City. Yesterday a Bristol Traffic reporter witnessed the aftermath of such an incident in Ashley Road where a cyclist in her 20s was run over by a left turning lorry.

The day before a 52 year old cyclist was hit by a van on Winterstoke Road and is now reported to have died from his head injuries (yes, he was wearing a helmet). Later on the same day a cyclist in his 20s was run over by a left turning lorry at Old Market. Last Thursday a cyclist in his 30s was run over by a left turning lorry at the bottom of St Michael's Hill. Finally (sadly only for the purposes of this piece) just four weeks ago a cyclist was knocked down by an ambulance at the bottom of Tower Hill.

View Cycle and ped injury incidents in a larger map

We cannot comment on the individual circumstances of these collisions beyond what basic information is given in reports (and even then we must be wary of accepting such reports as accurate). But we can make a few observations about the circumstances that seem to be common (though not necessarily contributory factors) to several of these incidents. Firstly all involved commercial vehicles presumably driven by "professional" drivers. Secondly three involved lorries turning left. Thirdly in most cases there were cycle lanes which it seems the cyclists involved were using.

If my experience is typical then cyclists need to be more wary of "professional" drivers than the average motorist. This applies to many bus and taxi drivers as well as those of vans and lorries. There are many reasons for this - they tend to be driving bigger, wider vehicles, they are under pressure to meet schedules and they tend to be over-confident and blasé, even arrogant. But should we not expect higher standards from "professional" drivers?

Left turning lorries are well documented as a problem for cyclists, especially the younger and inexperienced ones and it seems particularly women (as in yesterday's Cheltenham Road - Ashley Road incident and a string of recent deaths in London). This may be because lorry drivers are negligent about checking their left side for clearance before turning and because inexperienced cyclists have not yet learned to be wary of lorries. But should cyclists have to compensate for what is arguably negligence by the drivers involved?

In many cases cyclists are encouraged to overtake on the inside of potentially left turning traffic by the arrangement of cycle lanes. The Cheltenham Road - Ashley road junction is a classic where cyclists mostly going straight on are funnelled into a cycle lane on the left side of the left turning lane. This so obviously sets cyclists up to be in conflict with motor traffic that one wonders at the sanity of the world, or at least of the so-called 'cycling' officers responsible for it.

Final point - what support are these cyclists getting from Cycling City? If I was running the show the first thing I would do is set up a Cyclists' Support Centre, somewhere where cyclists could drop in and get a sympathetic hearing and practical support in their struggle to assert their right to use the public highway. But as we know almost the first act of Cycling City was to vilify cyclists who rode through red lights and so to fuel the antipathy to cyclists expressed in many of the online comments to the Evening Post reports.

Thanks to Bristol Traffic for the pictures.

Bristol Greenwash Companion

2009-08-08T07:49:00.016+01:00

Thanks to a comment by Tim in the Greenwash Corner post I tracked down a copy of the Green Companion, delivered as an insert in the current issue of Venue magazine. It was marked 'free' (i.e. already paid for by we tax payers) so it was with a clear conscience that I liberated a copy from Borders for later perusal.

The Green Companion is published by the Bristol Green Capital Initiative whose website is bristolgreencapital.org, which is sponsored by The Bristol Partnership, who are, er, we don't know because their web site refers to an executive board but neglects to tell us who they are. Minor details I know and only a carping critic like me would try to make anything of such trivial omissions. It seems the website is due to be revamped because we find this tucked away on the site -

We apologise for the inconvenience caused and look forward to introducing you to the new Bristol Partnership website in the near future.

Jon House
Deputy Chief Executive
Bristol City Council

Last Updated: 20th November

The "near future" since last November doesn't seem to include the subsequent 9 months so it looks like we're dealing with local government here, as the name of the Sheffield policeman who now trousers £140k of our taxes each year confirms. Interestingly we also find this -

Last March, we commissioned a review of the Bristol Partnership, which gave us some hard messages. Since then we have been working hard to make the changes required but at the same time keep the work going.

Hard messages? Like you're totally dysfunctional and a pointless waste of tax payers' money? Of course we, who merely paid for this review, have no business knowing what it said, but we can all guess (but see later edit). I wonder if concealing details of who the Bristol Partnership are is one of the "changes required".

What about the Green Capital Initiative then. Do we know who they are? The website seems to confirm that it is merely part of the Bristol Partnership and the only clue we have as to who runs it comes from the contact list, a bunch of bureaucrats ensconced safely out of the way at the Create-a-job Centre on the city's western fringe.

Anyway back to the Green Companion. What's that about? Firstly it's not about asking questions and provoking debate. The 'Resources' section refers to a variety of nice, fluffy 'green' websites that won't trouble your cerebral cortex with anything more taxing than reading familiarly soothing words and half-baked notions of greenness like ecojam, bristol streets and the create centre. You certainly won't find a reference to this blog, the Bristol Blogger, Bristol Traffic or anyone else asking awkward questions and encouraging people to think for themselves.

But look who we do find with pride of place in the 'Money' section of the Green Companion, none other than Hargreaves Lansdown, whose co-founders Steve Lansdown and Peter Hargreaves have prominent local profiles. Steve Lansdown of course has green plans to build a new stadium for Bristol City Football Club on greenbelt land and to turn the existing stadium site into a giant Tesco Extra supermarket with 600 car parking spaces which many locals fear will undermine the viability of that ungreen anachronism from the pre-car shopping era - North Street.

Later edit. Thanks to a link provided in the comment below by the Bristol Blogger we now have access to a copy of the 'peer' review of the Bristol Partnership - here. There was no link provided on the Bristol Partnership website as per normal practice so I wrongly concluded that it wasn't available to public scrutiny.

Mea Culpa

2009-08-07T07:25:00.003+01:00

We all make mistakes from time to time and yesterday I made a very silly one. I posted on this blog that it was the 25th anniversary of the official opening of the Bristol & Bath Railway Path. In fact that event was the 6th August 1985, er, 24 years ago. No excuses, it was just that I noticed that it was already the 6th and had in the back of my mind that the 25th anniversary was imminent then added 2 and 2 to make 5.

I realised my embarrassing mistake, as one does, at 5 a.m. this morning. I'm not sure if I'd already woken up or if the thought woke me up, but my second thought was to delete all traces of my error. Fortunately there hadn't been any comments made on the blog post so deleting that was easy enough. Even more fortunately the blog post didn't mention the date in question, only that it was 25 years ago, so no one would have known I'd got it wrong unless they did some research. It looked as if I might get away with it.

But then I thought about the ethics of it (after the event, also as one does). Wasn't I doing exactly what I often accuse the Council and others of doing - trying to cover up their mistakes rather than coming clean and saying "mea culpa"? Besides, what if someone did spot the mistake and my attempt to cover it up? That would be far worse than merely making the mistake in the first place. So a potent mixture of principle and pragmatism lead me to conclude that I had to fess up, not merely to the mistake but to the moral quandary it threw me into.

Greenwash Corner

2009-08-04T09:36:00.004+01:00

Some of us were hoping that Bristol's richly deserved failure to be awarded European Green Capital status back in February might have dampened their spirits somewhat, but it seems that the Green Capital crap is still being peddled.

Over on the Bristol Streets site, which masquerades as a wholly independent site but is in reality a mouthpiece for pro council propaganda and to which council officers appear to have privileged access, we find a puff piece entitled "Bristol Still Green Even if not Green Capital", which includes the claim that -

"The competition has reaffirmed Bristol’s Green Capital commitment to be seen as the leading city in Europe for the quality of its environment and in the way it is tackling climate change."

Oh really? Losing has reaffirmed? I suppose that's what you call looking on the bright side (something I have to admit I'm not familiar with). But if Bristol's strengths are the way it is tackling climate change and the quality of its environment (stuff like transport and noise?), how come it lost? The same paragraph answers our question-

"It (the competition) has also given a clear indication of the priority areas of action needed to be addressed; these are climate change, transport and noise."

Bullshit Corner

2009-08-03T09:28:00.011+01:00

Despite the Lib Dems taking control of Bristol City Council back in June, and even a recent plea from Venue magazine ("no more bullshit PR"), the tide of civic bullshit remains unabated. Even Cllr Jon 'openness and transparency' Roger's City Development department continues to insult our intelligence with such egregious extravagance as this below, highlighted by an opinion piece by Roger Tavener on Bristol 24-7.

TRANSPORT SERVICE DIRECTOR
(£92,000 a year)

Give 500,000 people the freedom of the city

One of Europe’s most successful, green and vibrant cities, Bristol’s progress is being slowed by congestion, with the associated issues of road safety and air quality. By delivering a visionary transport system which addresses these challenges, you’ll release opportunities, and give ½ million people the freedom to enjoy their city in the ways they want.

This is one of the biggest jobs in city transport. Spearheading one of the largest improvement programmes outside London, your remit is simply to drive a step change in the Bristol Transport offer, and deliver the 21st century system our residents deserve. In doing so, you will change people’s perceptions, influence travel behaviour, and prove that sustainable city transport is truly attainable.

Those of us who daily struggle with getting around this city might well be cynical. There are fundamental problems with reconciling the many contradictory expectations that people have when it comes to transport. We value personal freedom, in particular free (in both senses) access to the highway network where we like, when we like and in whatever vehicle we like. But we castigate the inevitable consequences of that freedom - congestion, pollution, social exclusion, conflict between different road users, obstructive parking and expensive and inefficient public transport.

The inconvenient truth is that no politician, even Honest Jon, is going to be able to deliver real change because when it comes to the crunch the turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas (as demonstrated by the Manchester congestion charging referendum), however much some might insist it's the only way forward. So the politicians have to resort to sleight of hand, making extravagant gestures to foster the expectation of some future transport fantasy (above) so that we don't notice that nothing much has really changed. Even the bullshit above refers to changing "people’s perceptions" rather than the reality.

Later edit - here's the result of an automated bullshit detector test, highlighted words being from list that Local Government Association says should not be used. (thanks to Woodsy for that).

Bridge of Thighs?

2009-08-02T07:16:00.009+01:00

The Bristol Harbour Festival (cost circa £0.4 million) this weekend involves the closure of many city centre roads to allow the crowds to circulate more freely around the St Augustine's Reach area. Our old friend Prince Street Bridge is completely closed to motor traffic, as it should be, and the change in the ambiance on and around the bridge is palpable. People amble across in a relaxed, unhurried manner. Cyclists pick their way through gingerly, not daring to disturb the pedestrians in their way. For walkers crossing the bridge becomes something to savour rather than something to be negotiated cautiously.

Could Prince Street Bridge be like this on a daily basis? The numbers of pedestrians would be less and the numbers of cyclists more, and both would be in more of a hurry, but that is easily resolved by allocating one half of the bridge to each so the Arnolfini side becomes pedestrian only and the Redcliffe side becomes two way for cyclists. In that way all significant conflict is removed and everyone can enjoy crossing the bridge in a relaxed way, except of course for motorists but they have the nearby 4 lane Redcliffe Bridge, not to mention virtually the entire highway network, so are amply provided for elsewhere.

But it seems Bristol City Council do not want to explore such possibilities. As was first revealed here on this blog they plan to use the Redcliffe half of the bridge for Bus Rapid Transit (banning other motor traffic) and then cyclists will either have to share that side with the 18 metre long bendy-buses or share the limited width on the Arnolfini side with pedestrians, neither of which is acceptable.

As we see below from a picture taken during our brief summer the pedestrianised half of the bridge is already under pressure from current levels of use by walkers and cyclists. Further growth in numbers, which is to be expected and desired, may well provoke conflict unless more sensible use can be made of the overall width of the bridge.

One might wonder why general motor traffic cannot be diverted to more suitable crossing points right away as it will have to be if and when BRT is introduced. But that would allow people to become accustomed to a truly traffic free bridge and might result in opposition to the introduction of BRT.

So we must continue to suffer so that nothing may impede the introduction of their precious BRT, on which they pin such ridiculously high hopes. It is after all little more than a tarted up bendy bus with some exclusive lanes and junction priorities, not exactly a "step change" in public transport.

Economics for Dummies (and City Councillors)

2009-07-30T22:12:00.008+01:00

As you may have heard the City Museum has somehow managed to put on a hugely popular exhibition of art by Banksy. Queues are reported to exist all day long and a two hour wait seems to be fairly typical. Entrance to the Banksy exhibition is 'free' - that is it is paid for by the tax payers of Bristol rather than the people actually 'enjoying' the show, many of whom are visitors from around the country. More than 350,000 people are expected to visit the Banksy exhibition by the time it closes at the end of August.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as applied to transport planning puts a value on people's time so that the cost of congestion (queueing) can be compared to the cost of investing in increased capacity. The value ascribed to your time is highly variable depending on whether or not it's working time and how you travel. As a mere cyclist my working time is valued at around £17 p.h. but a car driver's working time is valued at around £27 p.h. Why I don't know off hand, probably just a reflection of deep rooted prejudices.

Non-working time is more difficult to put a value on. How much would you expect to be paid to stand around for a couple of hours doing nothing much in Queen's Road - £5 p.h., £10 p.h., £20 p.h.? Let's say £10 p.h as a conservative figure for the sake of the argument, so that's £20 for the two hour wait. Multiply that by 350,000 and we get £7 million as the value of all the time spent queueing, or in CBA terms the cost to the economy of the congestion.

Now let's suppose that someone in Bristol City Council has a clue about economics (I know, it's just a wild hypothesis) and institutes an admission charge to the museum set at a level that will just eliminate queueing (perhaps incorporating a time slot booking system). Let's guess that an admission charge of £5 would have this effect. That would result in an income of £1.75 million to the City Museum (which in turn could mean Council Tax being reduced pro rata - one can dream).

Such an admission charge would save those otherwise queueing £7 million but cost them £1.75 million in admission charges so a net saving to them of £5.25 million. In addition we have a potential saving to Bristol's Council Tax payers of £1.75 million, so the total benefit to the economy will be around the £7 million worth of time saving. Some of the value saved might well be spent in other ways in Bristol. For example visitors who weren't standing in a queue for two hours might well visit shops or cafes instead, perhaps spending an average of say £5 per head in the process so putting another £1.75 million into the local economy.

That's a simplistic summary based on some fairly arbitrary figures (do suggest corrections or refinements to this model), but it gives a useful indication of the scale of waste (which we all ultimately have to fund) arising from the economic illiteracy of Bristol City Council. Headline - Council tax payers' subsidy of Banksy exhibition costs local economy over £7 million.

Shared Space - Coming Our Way

2009-07-30T07:11:00.008+01:00

A post today by Martin Jones alerts us to the fact that the Shared Space concept may soon be introduced to some Bristol streets. Park Street and the Clifton Triangle are specifically mentioned. I've blogged about Shared Use before, expressing reservations about the willingness of British motorists to accept the concept.

So what exactly is Shared Space? The principle is quite simple and appealing. All road users share the same space on the street on equal terms and with no priority given to one direction of travel over another (although the drive-on-the-left convention would continue to apply) or to vehicles over pedestrians. So no pavement / road distinction, no traffic signals or give way markings at junctions and no specific pedestrian crossings (since pedestrians can freely cross anywhere, almost as if the whole street were a zebra crossing).

Of course such sharing is only possible at very low speeds, perhaps around 10 mph, and with limited vehicular traffic volumes, especially through traffic. We already have examples in the form of Home Zones, based on the Dutch Woonerf principle, but these have little if any through traffic so cannot be taken as models for how the concept might work on busy streets like Park Street. The forecourt of Temple Meads station is cited as an example of shared space, but it still has separate pavements and of course no through traffic since all vehicles using that space are accessing the station.

Ashford before....

There are some examples in the UK, notable Ashford in Kent where the former ring road has been downgraded to what is claimed to be Shared Space and the results certainly look attractive in still pictures compared to what went before, as described in this post by Tom Vandebilt and as shown above (before) and below (after) here. However it's clear that this isn't pure Shared Space but retains some segregation and priority, notably keeping separate pavement and road (technically footway and carriageway).

.....Ashford after.

I expect that what we might get in Bristol will also be some kind of hybrid, or bastard child perhaps. Neither one thing nor the other, rather like what was done in the Centre ten years ago. Therein lies a danger. We may end up with something which confuses the existing conventions without giving clear guidance as to what replaces them. The Centre has been a road safety disaster with 6 pedestrian deaths in a few years at just a couple of crossing points for precisely that reason.

There is very little practical experience of Shared Space in the UK and virtually none in Bristol, so it is easy to think that Shared Space will be some sort of panacea. But experience elsewhere suggests that results will be mixed at best. Recorded injury accidents may fall but what about low level harassment and intimidation which is not recorded or even acknowledged by the authorities? Such conflict could even become worse as measures that give some priority or protection to pedestrians and cyclists are removed.

I've no doubt that we need to change the conventions of how streets are used by traffic and to change the visual character of our streets so they look like sociable places. But I believe such change must be based on a deeper understanding of the nature of conflict between different road users which does not yet appear to exist amongst the highway engineers who will be entrusted with implementing Shared Space. So watch this, er, space.

Sunday's Ride - Eastern Approaches

2009-07-24T14:54:00.005+01:00

The weather forecast for Sunday isn't looking too good but I'm obliged to lead a ride nonetheless. I wouldn't blame anyone for giving it a miss if it looks like solid rain on the day (in fact please do, then I can slope off too), but just in case things brighten up here's the plan, although it might get curtailed a bit if bad weather sets in. We'll be pottering around slowly so nothing very athletic involved. Warning - likely to be muddy in places, not for the fastidious.

Rodway Common.

The idea is to explore the eastern fringes of Bristol, which mostly comes under South Glos these days and were formerly under Kingswood. The route I've put together, with help from John Grimshaw (who intends to come along), is almost entirely off road and mostly along the Railway Path corridor but without actually using the Railway Path itself or even much of the Ring Road cycle path. It threads together miles of off-road paths that have for the most part existed for many years but which are now supplemented by a detailed network in the new development at Emerson's Green.

Former coal mine at Emerson's Green

Overall distance, if we stick with the full route, is a little over 20 mostly flattish miles but may involve a little hiking and lifting bikes over stiles. Bring some food and drink in case although there's a good chance we'll be sheltering in cafes from time to time. And waterproofs of course, and maybe a change of clothing in case you get soaked. To emphasise the watery theme we'll be following rivers or streams most of the way. First the Frome, then Siston / Warmley Brook, then back beside the River Avon.

River Avon at Netham.

Another warning - there's an educational element in that we'll be looking at existing and proposed cycling infrastructure in the context of Cycling City, which is where John Grimshaw comes in to defend the project from my cynicism, but we'll keep the duologues to a minimum. Because we'll always be near (but not on) the Railway Path it will be easy to break off and head home if you feel you've had enough before the official end. Who knows we might all do the same.

An englishman's home ...... Warmley

Ride starts at the Arnolfini at 10 am on Sunday. If you're in east Bristol and want to join us as we head out we should be passing along the Frome (through Eastville Park and Snuff mills) about 10.30 ish but call me on 0775 282 7755 to liaise.

Bristol - London Electrification

2009-07-23T08:38:00.007+01:00

The planned electrification of the mainline railway between London and Bristol (and also on to Swansea and with spurs to Oxford and Newbury), announced today, may sound like good news from an environmental perspective. Electric trains operate more efficiently because they don't have to carry their own fuel and fuel-energy converter (diesel engine) which reduces their weight and hence their energy consumption for a given speed. So they can save energy, or go faster, or a bit of both.

Existing electrification near Paddington (Westbourne Grove)

That's my first quibble. It looks like some of the potential energy saving may be consumed by higher speeds and faster acceleration, so saving all of 19 minutes on the Swansea to London run - small beer for a journey that takes at least 3 hrs. If we are serious about reducing our energy consumption then we have to question the endless pursuit of higher speeds. Yes, there is an argument for making trains faster to compete more successfully with more environmentally malign modes of travel, but if we priced all (road, rail and air) according to the environmental damage caused then that wouldn't be an issue.

It is claimed that the energy consumed by electric trains can be generated by renewables like wind, wave and tidal energy. But can it? Energy consumed by electric trains will be above and beyond what would otherwise be consumed, which is already way beyond the generating capacity of renewables, even if we add in nuclear. For the foreseeable future renewables and nuclear will continue to supply only a minor part of our electricity generating capacity, so in effect any additional electrical demand means more generation from fossil fuelled capacity. Thus it follows that the additional electricity generated for rail will be mainly from carbon emitting sources.

Last but by no means least there is the question of the capital cost, some £1.1 billion over the next 8 years we are told, although we all know what happens to cost estimates and timescales. Labour do not expect to be in government for the next 5 years or so, so it's easy for them to 'commit' a future Conservative government to public expenditure. They must know that huge public expenditure cuts are on the horizon, whoever wins the next election. But Labour don't expect that to be their problem. I guess they expect that the Conservatives will have to cancel or postpone this project, which will of course give Labour an opportunity to attack the Tories. Is that is what is really behind this announcement?

Living Streets Launch in Bristol

2009-07-22T12:55:00.013+01:00

My current obsession with matters bicyclical, prompted by the rich irony of Bristol being designated Cycling City, has resulted in my neglect of matters bipedal which I originally intended to be one of the main foci of this blog. Or in plain English, what about walking? So let's remind ourselves of some of the problems of pedestrianism in Bristol.

Here's the Bath Road, the main walking route from central Bristol and Temple Meads station towards the south east quadrant of Bristol, including Totterdown, Knowle, Arno's Vale and Brislington. What we find is a narrow footway sub-divided to be 'shared' with two-way flows of cyclists, hard up against a heavily trafficked road with no less than four wide lanes dedicated to motor traffic. To complement the traffic noise buffeting walkers from the right we have a brick wall and advertising hoardings to the left. The message is simple - in Bristol walkers (and cyclists) come a poor second to motor traffic.

Even where some effort is made to improve the lot of pedestrians we find motorists abusing those facilities, as with the driver of DU08 SXV above who regards the dropped kerb of the new pedestrian crossing on the centre as a convenient place to pull in to take a phone call. Such a callous disregard for the convenience and safety of those second-class citizens who walk is endemic in Bristol, as we see again below where the driver of VO51 CCD has parked at the junction of Westbourne Place with St Pauls Road, in Clifton, in such a way as to force pedestrians to walk out into the traffic on the main road. Needless to say no action has been taken or will be taken against these miscreants.

But there is hope. Tomorrow night a new Bristol branch of Living Streets will be launched with a meeting at Corn Street in in central Bristol at 7.30 pm. I have great hopes for this local group because it is being launched with the help of local Green activist Steve Meek (below), one of the leaders of last year's phenomenal Save the Railway Path campaign. I believe he is someone who is determined to focus on getting results and not just going through the motions as some so-called campaign groups do (you know who you are). Expect some fun events too.

What's more Living Streets nationally have engaged another Bristol based environmental activist Josh Hart to promote the cause. Some of you may have heard one of his compelling presentations on the need to curb traffic. He will naturally be taking a great interest in the Bristol group. So we can be confident that this group is really going to start making a difference, and the sooner the better. But of course we need your support.

Whether we are cyclists, motorists or public transport users, we are all pedestrians too. Walking is the most fundamental form of transport and the most sociable way of getting around. Chance meetings in the street are very much part of the walking experience and that helps to foster a sense of community and common interests, without which 'society' may well implode. Walking really should take first place in the transport hierarchy, even at the expense of my beloved cycling.

So please turn out tomorrow. All are invited to the Living Streets Bristol kickoff meeting, upstairs room, Pizza Express, Corn St Bristol. 7.30pm Thursday 23rd July. If you can't make the meeting then at least make contact - livingstreetsbristol@gmail.com or tel: 0789 999 2398

Do as we say...

2009-07-20T07:56:00.011+01:00

According to a Guardian report Government departments, including those with a major presence in Bristol, are refusing to allow their own staff to take advantage of the Governments own Cycle to Work scheme, which is claimed to "promote healthier journeys to work and to reduce environmental pollution", despite encouraging thousands of companies in the private sector to participate.

Departments said to be blocking access to the scheme include the Department of Environment, Food and rural Affairs (which embraces the Environment Agency whose head office is at Aztec West in north Bristol) and the Ministry of Defence which employs thousands at its Abbey Wood complex in north Bristol. As an alternative to the scheme Departments offer employees wanting to buy bicycles interest-free loans and discounts at bike shops, but the savings under the Cycle to Work scheme could be four times as much, amounting to 40% of the cost of a new bicycle.

Personally I don't see why people should get tax breaks to buy bicycles, or anything else, in the first place. I don't want the government telling me how I should spend my money or how I should travel to work. Besides it's not the cost of bicycles that deters people from cycling, it's the behaviour of motorists which is something the government can legitimately do something about (but of course they do precious little).

In my admittedly limited experience the people taking advantage of the Cycle to Work scheme are relatively well paid and overwhelmingly middle class professionals. What's more they often buy very expensive bikes to supplement more prosaic bicycles that they already have. So it's very questionable whether the scheme actually delivers in terms of encouraging a modal shift towards cycling or helping people who genuinely cannot afford to buy a bicycle at the normal price.

A Complete Sham?

2009-07-18T09:34:00.005+01:00

"Is the democratic will of the people a complete sham?"

That's the question put by Bristol Civic Society and Redcliffe futures Group following Bristol City Council's decision to grant planning permission for a development in Redcliffe that ignores many of the principles agreed over many years of elaborate consultation over the redevelopment of the historic area to the south of Bristol Bridge.

You can probably guess my answer, especially after the way the Greenbank Railway Path land sale consultations have been ignored. But hope springs eternal and many people continue to invest countless hours in ultimately futile 'consultations' with bodies like Bristol City Council and all the quangos/partnerships/forums which it has spawned. It seems we all have to learn the hard way.

Here's the BCS/RFG letter as published recently in the Evening Post. It's worth reading carefully since it's a carefully constructed record of the way in which the council lead us up the garden path with time consuming consultations which involve them getting paid for sitting around in endless meetings but to finally capitulate to the demands of the developers.

The recent planning permission granted by the City Council to Carlyle Group, a "premier" American Private Equity Company, for their huge development site between Redcliffe Street and St Thomas Street has made a mockery of eight years' intensive community involvement by the citizens of Bristol, set up in 2001 by the Council as a formal partnership with the city Redcliffe Futures Group (RFG).

RFG has included representatives of professions and businesses, public authorities, residents' committees and other bodies including the Civic Society and Redcliffe Community and Environment associations as well as Business West, the local schools and the four Ward Councillors who represent the Redcliffe area. In all – and with key city council officers from various departments – about 30 of these representatives have been directly involved in the group over the period since 2001.

Out of this lengthy and detailed process, the group set out a clear vision of what they wanted for the area, culminating in SPD3 The Future of Redcliffe, adopted by the Council in July 2006 to provide a clear strategy for the future planning of Redcliffe over its 200-or-so acres of central Bristol.

SPD3 was a remarkable piece of democracy; a huge investment of energy, ideas and commitment by the citizens of Redcliffe and wider Bristol, together with their partner, Bristol City Council.

The planning permission given by this same city council three weeks ago ignores almost everything set out in SPD3, making a complete nonsense of the partnership between Council and citizens.
The community is wondering how meaningful is this partnership with the Council, which has cost them eight years of huge commitment in time and perseverance – all to produce very little for the citizens but high rewards to the developer? Even the council hasn't benefited, it would seem.

What went so badly wrong?

While the Carlyle Group may congratulate themselves over their success in raising the value of their ownership, the community may recall that this land site has changed hands five times in the past nine years and the promise of regeneration, employment opportunities and revival of the local economy have simply resulted in well-known business such as Pattersons, Pilkingtons Glass, Bristol Blue Glass and others being ousted from the area with the promises (and premises) remaining empty.

The soullessness of the Business Park characterises an area where no child or young adult is welcome and where underground car parking underpins most of the site. Such is the new promise for Redcliffe Village.

The people of Bristol do not want their city centre littered with what Global Private Equity Company developers choose to parachute in.

When will our elected representatives and the officers they employ heed what their constituents – the electorate – crave?

When will the City's high-minded ideals of exemplary involvement of its citizens in guiding the future of our beloved Bristol be matched by the Council¹s actions?

Or is the democratic will of the people a complete sham?

The Carlyle example isn't by any means unique; the truly democratic process of community involvement has been given little consideration elsewhere in our city. Bristol Civic Society has expressed its increasing concern over this almost farcical process of inviting and encouraging community involvement, then dismissing it out of hand.

Can the new Liberal Democrat Council offer a remedy? Is there a chance that our new political leaders can pay heed to the electorate?

Over to you, Lib Dems; we expect big changes from you in attitude to citizen involvement. You can start by reviewing this tragic permission given by the planning committee – based on a recommendation that, you will discover, ignored most of the key principles set out in SPD3.

Redcliffe Futures Group,

Bristol Civic Society

St Thomas Street in 1906, before the car.

Spending the Cycling City Millions

2009-07-16T07:35:00.006+01:00

At the beginning of the three year Cycling City project we were told there would be £22.8 million of funding of which £17.6 million would be spent on infrastructure (cycle routes and facilities). A year in and there isn't much to show for it, just 700 metres of upgraded path in St Werburghs and some new cycle racks and signs here and there.

Yet we were told to expect almost £3.5 million to have been spent on infrastructure by April of this year. As mere tax payers we are not party to information about the cost of such projects as the St Werburghs path upgrade, but I think we can safely say it falls a long way short of £3.5 million. Understandably it takes time to get these projects up and running, but even so people are beginning to wonder where the money is going.

Here's one possibility. This old stone bridge over the River Frome at Wickham Hill in Stapleton is being repaired, mainly it seems repointing the masonry. The bridge has been closed to general traffic for many years and is now only used by occasional walkers and cyclists, and a pipeline of some sort.

However the bridge is part of a route identified by Cycling City as requiring some 'new infrastructure' and one element of 'new infrastructure' appears from this leaflet to be located at or near this bridge. The text of the leaflet also refers to 'improvements' to bridges (but how do 'improvements' transmogrify into 'new infrastructure'? Oh yes, we've been there before). Just to confuse the issue (it wouldn't be Cycling City if we weren't confused) the marginally more detailed notes issued by Bristol City Council in March of this year refer to the need for the 'replacement' of this and another bridge.

If the bridge repairs are indeed Cycling City funded then one might ask if this is really the sort of thing that ought to be funded out of the that budget. It could be said that such bridge repairs are just part of the ongoing maintenance of our civic heritage and don't really count as 'new infrastructure' for cyclists. Still, they've got to find some way to spend the Cycling City money and in the continuing absence of any significant 'new infrastructure' perhaps this is as good a way as any.

Hourbike Launched with a Whimper

2009-07-15T08:31:00.014+01:00

A report in today's Evening Post tells us that Hourbike has been officially launched in Bristol with four hubs, each with about 4 bikes, in central Bristol to complement the four pilot sites at Bristol Parkway and UWE (map here). The story includes a quote from my previous blogpost on Hourbike where I gave a predictably downbeat verdict. But it seems I'm not the only one with doubts about the viability of the scheme.

The Cycling City project seem to be disowning the project, claiming that the funding of £12,000 from Bristol City Council isn't Cycling City money and that Hourbike is not part of Cycling City. This is quite remarkable since all the evidence is that this was envisaged as being an integral part of Cycling City. The media certainly gave that impression at the launch of Cycling City last year and nothing was said to disabuse them of that idea.

The Post report says nothing about any official launch ceremony and so we might conclude that Cycling City don't want it to have a high profile. Even the inevitable Jon Rogers quote is quite guarded.

"Anything that encourages people to leave the car behind and find a healthy, sustainable way of getting about the city has to be welcomed. This pilot scheme will give us the opportunity to see what kind of demand there might be for a more widespread network in Bristol. We certainly wish Hourbike all the best."

Damned by faint praise? But it seems that the promoters of Hourbike have more than enough chutzpah to compensate for the fainthearts elsewhere. Dan Cooper, 28, Hourbike's sole employee in Bristol and nephew of Hourbike boss Tim Caswell (now, now, let's not hear the N word), said

"This can definitely work in Bristol. It cannot fail as an idea."

Mr Cooper goes on to say that there could one day be 2,000 of their bikes on the streets of Bristol (and will it endure for a thousand years too?). But he neglects to mention that the best known automated bike hire schemes, in Paris and Barcelona, were actually launched with thousands of bikes available from hundreds of locations, not just eight hubs that don't as yet even include the central railway station (a minor detail overlooked by the promotional video below).

According to Mr Cooper there are plans to open new hubs, subject to planning permission, in Temple Meads and Temple Quay. One wonders why they need planning permission at these locations but not elsewhere, and why have they been so tardy about progressing a hub at such a key location as Temple Meads. Are First Great Western perhaps lukewarm about encouraging cycling or getting cold feet about their involvement?

If Mr Cooper and family are so confident about the future success of the Hourbike project why have they come cap in hand for public funds to support it instead of raising the funds privately? Surely if it "cannot fail" then it can only succeed and prove a profitable venture? Or is it that no private investor will touch it with a barge pole?

Video summary. Desperation (How to get to the train station in 5 minutes?), Pacification (Ah, an Hourbike Hub), Expectation (This is quick, I'll soon be there), Acclamation (Ah, Temple Meads at last), Realisation (There's no fucking Hub here to deposit the bike!).

Cycling City - Police Haul Cyclist Off Train

2009-07-14T13:56:00.006+01:00

The 'Better by Bike' message of Bristol's Cycling City project doesn't seem to be filtering through to the British Transport Police or railway staff. The email message below was sent today, recording an extraordinary incident at Temple Meads when a cyclist, one of four who had boarded a train with four bicycle spaces, was hauled off by police in riot gear and 'held' in the British Transport Police office (which sounds like being 'arrested' to me). I'll say no more but let you judge for yourselves from this account.

"Recently my son had a very unnerving experience at Temple Meads.

He has a part-time lecturing job in Cheltenham, so regularly travels there from Bristol. He goes by train, taking his bike to use at each end of the journey. However this is a gamble as he cannot rely on there being a space on any train for his bike. Bike tickets are issued, but with no guarantee about being able to take the bike on the train it is booked on.

Last month a "rule" was brought in that there could not be more than 3 bikes on any train, even if there were more than 3 bike racks. This is apparently so the provision will be the same on all trains, and the newer trains only have 3 racks.

The train he and his bike were booked on had 4 bike racks, and fortuitously 4 cyclists wishing to travel. However jobs-worth rail staff insisted that one person leave the train. This was obviously nonsense (with no flexibility for a new rule), and it was not clear how it could be decided who had to unlock their bike and leave. All refused, including a woman who became very upset. My son had an important day ahead with external examiners coming to his college, so felt it was impossible to wait for a later train. When he tried to have a (reasonable) discussion with the staff, their response was to call the railway police. 4 police arrived in riot gear, grabbed hold of my son, and held him in their office. He was told he was lucky not to be arrested (so what the justification for his treatment was is unknown).

So this is how the station responds to customer care issues, and the need for transport links to avoid car use. Brilliant."

Meanwhile in a parallel universe....

......where there's a will there's a way.

St George and the Dinosaur

2009-07-09T11:33:00.013+01:00

It's been interesting to observe George Ferguson's manoeuvring on the Ashton Gate Tesco supermarket proposal. Back at the beginning of June George was giving the idea very conditional support, saying

"If we're just going to end up with a big shed and whopping car park, then the answer is 'No'. "But if Tesco are prepared to do something really special, an exemplar scheme which is carbon-zero rated, which has mixed use and which puts Tesco at the heart of a community, then I think you could end up with a much better, more profitable scheme."

If only they'd had the sense to hire George, he would surely have sorted them out with something suitably community friendly. But they didn't and in due course the entirely predictable plans for a big shed and whopping car park appeared. By June 24th George is evidently losing patience with the developers. It's reported that he supports the football club in getting high value for the site in order to make its new stadium work, but any supermarket should be part of a mixed-use community if it was to find favour with him.

"They have to grow up and recognise that that form of supermarket is a dinosaur."

Still BCFC and Tesco didn't take the hint and pressed on with their dinosaur plans. Meanwhile opposition to the Tesco plan was growing in George's manor and the inaugural meeting of BERATE (Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion into Ashton Gate) was coming up, so time for another subtle position shift. At the meeting on 3rd July George said

“There is nothing like a major threat to its future to galvanise a community. This is an appalling proposal – another giant shopping shed set in a massive sea of car parking. The potential economic and environmental damage to this area is immense."

"I fully recognise the importance of Bristol City’s success but it is quite wrong to imply that a new supermarket is something to do with the new stadium or the World Cup – the two issues have to be de-coupled. It is inappropriate and legally dubious to consider the applications for the new stadium and the new supermarket simultaneously”.

Now that last point, the importance of "de-coupling" the two planning issues (Tesco and the new stadium), is a very sound one and I'm entirely in agreement. As George says, it would be "inappropriate and legally dubious" to consider the two issues as if one was conditional on the other. But of course we know that that sort of thing happens all the time with Bristol City Council.

Indeed George may well be mindful of a very recent example concerning the redevelopment of the old Chocolate Factory in Greenbank, where the city council have decided to sell a plot of Railway Path land (the long hedgerow shown below) to the developer, Squarepeg, in contravention of its own Parks and Open Spaces policies and the results of extensive public consultation. The reason given by the council is that the planned redevelopment of the Chocolate Factory depends on the land sale (because that's what Squarepeg claimed, in exactly the same way as BCFC claim that their plans for a new stadium depend on the Tesco development proceeding).

Inexplicably there appears to be no record of George Ferguson speaking out against this earlier travesty of natural justice. Yet he must surely have known all about it, seeing as he is the architect of the Chocolate Factory project and the agent who originally arranged the land sale in a private meeting with the council's Strategic Director of City Development, David Bishop. Perhaps if George had spoken out about the Railway Path land sale being wrongly coupled with the Chocolate Factory development, his current concerns about the Tesco - New Stadium linkage might have a little more credibility.

Let There Be Even More Light

2009-07-08T08:22:00.008+01:00

There's nothing like having to pay your own electricity bill to encourage economy in the use of lighting. Conversely it takes a body like Bristol City Council to really waste energy, since whatever it costs comes out of our pockets, not their own.

Here near Temple Meads the spotlights are blaring around 7 pm when dusk is at about 10 pm at this time of year. Likewise around the centre and the glass arcade at St Nick's market (below). Now supposing you had some spotlights on your home coming on at 7 pm even at the height of summer, wouldn't it cross your mind that you were wasting energy, and money, and needlessly adding to carbon emissions? Yes, of course it would, and you'd soon do something about it.

But what if you work for Bristol City Council? Do you notice? Do you care? Is it your responsibility? Probably the answer is 'no' to at least one of those questions, because as we see nothing gets done about even such a simple matter. That's the nature of the beast. The Council is impersonal and irresponsible. Corporate responsibility means no one takes individual responsibility. Yet so many people want to give more corporate 'responsibility' to the same body to address environmental issues. People, they can't even be bothered to switch the bloody lights off!

£19 million subsidy for south west airports

2009-07-07T13:25:00.012+01:00

According to Guardian journalist Goeorge Monbiot, The government's South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has spent £19m in recent years on extending the airport terminals at Bristol and Bournemouth, aircraft parking at Exeter and airport works at Plymouth and Newquay. The subsidies to Bristol Airport were made in 2004 and included £15,000 to pay for an economic assessment and greenhouse gas emissions assessment for a proposed direct scheduled service to New York and £1.5 million towards extending the terminal.

The bulk of the £19 million of SWRDA subsidies were directed at Newquay, so greatly undermining the attractiveness and potential of the existing rail link to the town. Likewise the £4+ million subsidy to Plymouth airport will give airlines a further competitive edge over rail. Now it is possible to fly from Bristol to Newquay in 45 mins for just £29 one-way which, even allowing for airport travel and check-in, is quicker and cheaper than rail (over 4 hrs, £65 off-peak return). Those low air fares owe a lot to public subsidy.

Air travel accounts for less than 1% of total UK business turnover but accounts for 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. You might think curbing the growth in air travel, particularly of domestic flights that can realistically be undertaken by rail or coach, should be the very top of the government's environmental agenda. Instead we find them pouring millions of our money into subsidies to support air travel at the expense of rail travel.

SWRDA is headed by career quangocrats Jane Henderson (CEO) and Juliet Williams (chair) - nice to see women taking a leading role in screwing the environment for our grandchildren. The board inevitably includes local serial quangocrat and Merchant Venturer John Savage, who, we are told, is "passionately concerned about the failure of the British educational system to produce opportunities for a large swathe of underprivileged young people..." which he "strives to redress" through, amongst other things, spending public funds subsidising the business and holiday trips of his privileged chums in the west country's elite.

HourBike or NineDayWonderBike?

2009-07-04T11:02:00.014+01:00

Bristol Traffic just beat me to it with pics of the new Hourbike installations, or hubs, in central Bristol, but at least I managed to find the one tucked away by At-Bristol as well as the one on Colston Avenue. The third is by the BRI and, er, that's it apparently, apart from the existing hubs at Parkway station and the UWE campuses. Map viewable here.

The idea is that you hire a bike near the origin of your journey (or modal transfer point like a railway station or P&R site) and then deposit it at a hub near your destination, so no concerns about bike security when you're not actually using it and no need to pay hire charges other than for the time you're actually riding the bike. Ideal, in principle, for shortish trips around town when you don't have your own bike available.

But with such a meagre distribution of 'hubs' the options are extremely limited. At-Bristol to BRI might just about be worth cycling and the BRI is quite close to the bus station, but either destination to the Colston Avenue hub is such a short distance that it's hardly worth the bother of hiring a bike. A longer journey combined with the use one's own bike lock to secure the bike at the destination is possible, but you'd pay for all the time on hire. And how many people are likely to have a decent bike lock with them?

Temple Meads station is the most obvious 'missing link', so could it be that First Great Western weren't willing to fund a Temple Meads hub, as they had at Bristol Parkway last year? Perhaps the minimal usage of the Parkway hub had given them cold feet? Could it be that a Temple Meads hub is due to appear shortly, before the official launch, whenever that is? As usual with Cycling City funded projects we know little more than can be observed on the ground or via the Internet.

One of the major issues with unsupervised automated bike hire schemes with hubs in public places is the vulnerability of the bikes to theft and vandalism, so let's have a closer look at the details. The bikes are secured by a prong attached to the top of the head tube which looks fairly solid, but the prong appears to be held to the head tube bracket by an allen key bolt. Could it be that all it takes to remove the bike is to undo an allen key bolt?

Another obvious vulnerability, pointed out by Bristol Traffic, is the easy removability of saddle and seat posts via saddle height adjustment mechanisms. BT didn't actually try to steal one, but I did. It doesn't work because at the high limit of adjustment something stops the seat post being raised any further, presumably an enlargement of the very end of the seat post. So at least they've thought of that one.

The lights look extremely vulnerable to damage, which is a shame because it's a neat little lighting system based on an expensive hub dynamo. The rear light could have been built into the rear carrier rack to protect it from casual damage and the front could have had a metal frame built around it for the same purpose. Or they could forget about lights altogether and let users make their own arrangements as and when necessary (which is what I think I would have done).

Both wheels are based on some fancy hubs incorporating brakes and with a dynamo in the front so might be considered desirable by those who appreciate such eminently practical features. The rims and tyres look quite decent too. The wheels are secured by what look like hexagon nuts but which on closer inspection appear to be some special security nuts. I wasn't 'tooled up' yesterday so haven't yet had a serious attempt at stealing bits, but we'll see in due course. I guess all the hub brakes connections would have to be undone too so maybe it's simpler to nick the whole bike.

The actual bicycle frames look cheaply built (crude welding) and clunky, so I don't suppose the bikes as a whole will be coveted by many, but some components are seriously vulnerable. CCTV might be a good idea to deter interference, but there were no signs advertising the presence of CCTV (which signs could be displayed even if there wasn't any CCTV, as on the Railway Path, if one wasn't too scrupulous about honesty - at least the Council shouldn't have any problem with that).

So my verdict, based on what I've seen, is that Hourbike in Bristol will be a nine day wonder and briefly attract a lot of media interest, followed by a longer period where it becomes a standing joke as the bikes suffer attrition but precious little in the way of legitimate use. This is primarily because the existing 'network' is so ludicrously limited. If Temple Meads and a few other central locations, perhaps including Long Ashton P&R, were included then it might have a chance.

Later correction 9 pm Saturday.

I've since discovered that the Hourbike bikes come equipped with a combination cable lock (combination issued on hire) so you wouldn't need to have your own lock. Having said that cable locks are notoriously easy to cut through and then the hirer would be responsible for the loss. Plus previous hirers of the same bike will know the combination. I wouldn't trust one.

Why Words Matter.

2009-07-03T04:05:00.011+01:00

Following on from the last post about the use of the term "new" by Cycling City to describe existing cycle routes that are being upgraded, which provoked some interesting responses including this coverage in an online cycling magazine (thanks to Noel for that link), I thought it might be productive to explore why the meaning of words, semantics, isn't merely a matter for "sterile and pedantic" debate as suggested by Cllr Jon Rogers.

First a dabble in the theory. All our thoughts and actions are based on ideas which are formulated with words. If words don't have agreed and recognised meanings then we cannot use them with any precision. If we cannot use words with precision then the ideas based on them become amorphous and ultimately meaningless. Then our thoughts and actions have no solid basis, which leaves us prey to the shysters, snake oil salesmen and politicians of this world. If that makes any sense you might like this piece by Charles Eisenstein, kindly flagged up by Tim Beadle and others via twitter, which takes the theme much further.

Now for a practical example. Yesterday Jon Rogers, who I'm still convinced wants to be as open and transparent as is possible, answered a query about the Hourbike scheme raised on the public Bristol cycling Campaign forum, saying (in a series of responses which I've amalgamated)-

I had a briefing this afternoon about imminent HourBike launch. Small private company that has been quietly trialling up at UWE between Parkway Station and UWE.

Officer response..."It's not part of the Council's Cycling City programme, but a private initiative started before the Cycling City funding was announced and consistent with our aims to promote and increase cycling. As part of the programme however we are also looking at the options for wider access to bikes, of which hire on a bigger scale is one."

Hour Bike is privately funded. They have, I understand had a grant of £4k, with further £4K for launch and £4k due next year - total £12K from Council investment. Would you like me to ask if that is counted as part of the council share of it's investment in Cycling City?

But then quite a lot more information emerged from another source. It seems this "privately funded private initiative" is mostly funded by public funds (from Bristol City Council, the University of the West of England (UWE) and First Great Western) and originated from publicly funded research at UWE. So Jon Rogers might well be pondering what 'private' means in that context. Clearly the officers giving him advice have a very different idea of the meaning of the word to me.

We also learn that another £20k of Cycling City money was allocated to the second phase of the Hourbike project. How does that fit with the £12k funding (which may or may not be Cycling City money - we still await a response on that point) reported by Jon Rogers? Some people need to be reminded that Cycling City money remains our tax money, however many different agencies it's passed between, and we're entitled to know exactly what it is being spent on.

The Cycling City launch press release said -

And there are new plans for a 24 hour automated bike hire scheme called ‘Hourbike’, providing bike locations (docking stations) across Bristol City centre and further afield around Parkway Station and the University of the West of England. This is subject to agreements on funding by the operator.

So is it right to say that the Hourbike scheme is not part of Cycling City? The Cycling City PR materials seems to say that it is. The funding seems to say that it is. But the officers say that it isn't. Who should Jon Rogers believe? Who should we believe?

My interpretation of this is that Cycling City are distancing themselves from the Hourbike scheme, presumably because they don't think it's viable or simply aren't prepared to pump prime it to the level where it could be viable. The Hourbike map suggests just three new locations in central Bristol to go with the four existing locations at Parkway (above) and UWE. That looks like little more than a token gesture to me.

But of course if Cycling City were honest and open about these things we wouldn't need my 'interpretations' or speculation, rumour and guesswork. We'd have the facts, based on words with agreed meanings. Surely Jon Rogers must be beginning to appreciate the logic of that.

Cycling City - New for Old

2009-07-01T09:26:00.008+01:00

There's an interesting debate going on in connection with Cycling City. What constitutes a "new" route as opposed to an existing route that has been improved in some way? The latest installment in this debate occurred yesterday with this story in the Evening Post claiming that "Two new links from the Bristol and Bath Railway Path could benefit cyclists and walkers living in Speedwell, St George, Redfield and Whitehall ".

The routes in question, shown on the map above (click to enlarge) by #24 and #25, are essentially existing routes (shown on the map below) which are already used by cyclists. However 'improvements' are proposed, including such things as light controlled road crossings and improved surfaces and realignments in places. So is it right to call them "new links"? As you can see from the comments on the article I accused the council of 'lying' over this use of the word "new" but Jon Rogers, the Executive Member for Transport, said -

This is a public consultation to create two new cycle links. True, the paths already exist, but the plan is to consult local residents and users of the Railway Path on improvements to the links to make them more suitable for cycling and walking. Words like "upgraded" or "improved" might strictly be more accurate than "new", but to accuse Bristol City Council of "lying" seems a bit strong.

Chris, we had the same sterile and pedantic discussion on the St Werburghs to Muller Road path, but if you travel along it you will see there is a "new path". The path is also "improved" and "upgraded".

The council press release for the opening of the St Werburghs path said "Bristol's trailblazing Cycling City programme has delivered the first completed kilometre of a new off-road cycle route". Note "route" rather than "path", so the "new" claim refers to the overall existence of the route, not some facet of it such as the new asphalt surface of the path. Yet it is well known that the very same route has been used by cyclists for at least the last 20 years.

The as yet non-existent link to Speedwell, actually built in 1980s.

The problem dates back to the beginning of the Cycling City project. For example the promotional leaflet issued in February of this year, at the first (so far) relaunch, included the map above which shows proposed "new infrastructure" (dark blue lines) and "new infrastructure on existing network" (broad cerise lines). So clearly the "new infrastructure" (dark blue) is by implication NOT on the existing network.

But the St Werburghs route (#2 on map above), which might reasonably be described as "new infrastructure on existing network" is in fact marked in dark blue and therefore as "new infrastructure" NOT on the existing network. Likewise the proposed "new link" to Speedwell (#24 on the map above) is shown as "new infrastructure" (dark blue) when it is in fact based on the existing network and so should properly be marked cerise). Are these "sterile and pedantic" distinctions?

Oddly enough the other "new link" (to St George) claimed in yesterday's Post story is shown merely as "existing network", but for a small element within it. So they can get it right occasionally, if only because they can't manage to be consistent about anything, even their deceits. The map shows many other examples of existing routes which are misrepresented as "new infrastructure", in fact most of what is marked in dark blue within the Cycling City area is existing cycle route.

Cycling City claims that it will deliver "13 miles of new track and 18 miles of improvements to the existing 73 miles of off-road track". So far, one year into the three year project, they have delivered less than half a mile of improved track. The 13 miles figure is pure fiction (and probably the other figures too, although I'm not yet in a position to prove that) and that fact will continue to be exposed on this blog until such time as the council come clean and withdraw all the false claims made in support of Cycling City.

Cycling City - Constructive Suggestion #6

2009-06-29T10:55:00.016+01:00

My last suggestion for south Bristol seemed to generate a more positive response than usual so here another idea to improve links between the city centre and the Southville / Bedminster area, an area that is mostly fairly flat and all within one and a half miles of the centre. General traffic routes are constrained by the River Avon and New Cut, so traffic congestion is high on the main river crossing at Bedminster Bridge.

Cyclists and pedestrians however have the option of using a number of traffic free bridges of which Gaol Ferry Bridge is the most popular. In fact Gaol Ferry Bridge is itself quite congested at times (above and below), with cyclists and pedestrians channeled into narrow 'pens' in a crude attempt to minimise conflict between them. If cycling continues to grow the limitations of Gaol Ferry Bridge will become even more critical. The other traffic free bridges are either remote from the main desire line (Ashton Avenue Bridge) or unsuitable for cycle use due to access problems (Vauxhall Bridge).

So how about a new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the New Cut, say halfway between Gaol Ferry Bridge and the next crossing point, to relieve the growing pressure there and perhaps give users a more direct link towards Prince Street Bridge? Such bridges need not be particularly expensive - perhaps around a million pounds - providing the approaches and abutments can be engineered fairly simply.

The most logical locations (shown as red links below) would feed directly into the best available links to Prince Street Bridge, either the link under Cumberland Road or near the southern end of Wapping Road. I favour the former link because it minimises conflict with motor traffic by passing under Cumberland Road and could make use of existing structures to provide abutments. There may even be a case for building bridges at both locations!

View South Bristol Routes. in a larger map

The map above shows how such bridges could link on in, including back to my last suggestion at Ashton Gate where a direct link can be made with the proposed Colliters Greenway to continue into Ashton Vale. Improved links southwards to the Malago Greenway would also be desirable and might be more readily achieved from a new bridge than from Gaol Ferry Bridge.

Providing the project was handled by an outside agency rather than the City Council it might all be achievable within a modest timescale and budget, possibly within the remaining two years of the Cycling City project. As with my other suggestions it's up to others to pick up and run with this if they think it sounds promising. But if we don't look at resolving the capacity constraints in corridors like this then cycling will not be able to grow to its full potential.

Cycle Bridge Chic - is it just me or are cycle bridges really sexy?

Car Free Sundays

2009-06-26T10:48:00.008+01:00

The idea of occasional car-free Sundays when areas of the city centre are temporarily closed to motor traffic has been tried and tested in many major cities around the world but has as yet not been taken up in Britain in any more than a tokenistic way. But it now seems as if the time might be right to push for Bristol to be the first UK city to institute regular car free Sundays affecting a substantial area of the city centre.

Swiftly following on the heals of Jon Rogers' proposal for more car-free Sundays on the Portway has come a proposal by a leading Conservative Councillor, Peter Abraham, to instead make street closures in the city centre in the manner of our twin city Bordeaux. The Portway closure proposal got a rather mixed reaction, even from the anti-car lobby, since it's a bit remote from the heart of the city and is not normally frequented by those, cyclists and pedestrians, who might benefit the most.

The city centre however is becoming a more popular place to go on Sundays, partly due to the popularity of Sunday shopping but also due to increasing tourism and a more cosmopolitan approach to life. Even without a special event plenty of people would be around to enjoy a traffic free environment in the centre although there is obviously plenty of scope to encourage the integration of festivities and entertainments with car-free Sundays.

View Car free centre in a larger map

The extent of any such closure remains to be determined, but my guess is that it might be based on the limits shown on my entirely speculative map above. This would create a traffic free Park Street, College Green, Centre, Old City, Queen Square and Broadmead while allowing car access to Cabot Circus and almost all the other major car parks. Traffic by-passing the centre to the west would use Park Row, Jacobs Wells Road, Hotwell Road, Cumberland Road and Coronation Road.

If we want to see this idea progressed we must make clear our support and enthusiasm. Write to the Executive Member for Transport, jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk, and comment on local web sites like that of the Evening Post. That's the way we demonstrate public support and overcome the moaning of the reactionaries of the pro-car lobby.

Here's some links to inspire you (thanks to TonyD from comments below) from New York and Vancouver.