CS11, the London Ringway and Hampstead

People paying attention to videos may note that more than one of our contributors have London accents. One actually has a South London accent, which is pretty shocking, but they've lived in the city long enough for it to no longer be something to apologise for. Another one of our team has a north-west london accent, the kind you'd get growing up in Camden and Brent. Their dark secret is even worse than having lived south of the Thames. They first went to school in Hampstead. (For locals, that little one opposite the tube station, under the everyman cinema, the one that still believes in hymns and things).


Eventually their parents saw the error of their ways and moved into West Hampstead, making their children walk to nearby ecoles. Under the gentle hand that was the Inner London Education Authority, swimming was taught at the nearest council pool: in primary school you got a coach. Come secondary school, they'd worked out a better solution: the kids were given the money to get the tube during lunch; if they made it to the swimming lesson they'd get the money to go home. This presented the children with two choices: take a tube from Kilburn to Swiss Cottage, or walk to the pool eating the bag of chips you'd just bought with the fare. Tough decision.

What was never considered was cycling from the school to the pool. Because that would involve negotiating the Swiss Cottage gyratory, a multilane mess which you had to cross to get to the pool or library, getting there along Finchley Road, the "A41" coming down off the M1 by way of Staples Corner and the North Circular. It was tube or foot.

In London: the tube is the mass form of transport for anyone near a station. It's why what zone you are in is a marker of house prices, "They can afford to live in Zone 2!"; distance from tube station advertised because it makes such a difference on your daily commute. Off-street parking? Maybe for those few houses that have it —but it's not useful for commuting anyway. Not only is there nowhere to park, and congestion fees to worry about —it's significantly slower than the tube.

Driving to work, at least if you work in Central London, is a minority form of commuting. That's even if you have a fancy job in the city: it's not that likely to have a parking space.



This is perhaps a reason for the volume of taxis in London, they're an exclusive form of travel for people who don't have parking spaces but can afford to sit in traffic jams. By outsourcing the sitting behind the wheel swearing to people from Essex, you can check emails on your phone, only at the cost of many pounds per journey.

The rise of cycling in London, then, is arguably a consequence of dissatisfaction with an overcrowded, expensive and unreliable tube, recognition that the bus service was worse, driving even more stupid and getting in a taxi a transport for the wealthy people with time on their hands.


Nowadays central London has a massive proportion of cycle commuters, those who are happy with a city worse to cycle in than Bristol, those who have learned all the back ways which are mostly survivable. When the new embankment and bridge segregated routes open, central London will show the rest of the UK cities how far they are behind, even Bristol, so proud of itself, can't do a pedestrian crossing of the Bearpit in less than a year, the Templemeads to Bemmy path is missing-considered-deceased, BRT2 has stolen bits of path and parkland, and then there's the centre and Baldwin Street. London is leading in both vision and execution. Which, when you consider the wanker in charge of it, quite saying something.

What London is doing is setting a baseline for the rest of Britain, for cycling and even, with Crossrail, what you can do for public transport. Bristol now needs to step up, making it pleasant to cycle across the city centre without you having to rehearse in your head a safe route and factoring in you won't have a clue what to do by The Centre, and that Templemeads hates cycling.

London needs to step up by moving out of the centre, to make it survivable to get in to the city, to make walking and cycling an option for people who live outside Zone 1. For a hint of the difficulties here, look at Vole O'Speed's coverage of Brent. As visitors to Brent with the "Love Bristol, Go Brent" campaign, we can assure people that he's actually upbeat about the prospects for cycling in Brent.

And Hampstead? With its primary school off a traffic jam of taxis? What hope does it have?




In CS11, it has the chance of a safe route to cycle from Swiss Cottage to the city centre, a feed in route for everyone in north west London. If you can get by bike to Swiss Cottage, you can carry on to your destination know that you'll be alive when you get there. Instead of having to text your loved ones "I'm at work, I'm fine!", you'd be able to text them "I'm on CS11, I'll live today!".

Except of course, the residents of St John's Wood don't want it, as it will make driving to Hampstead harder. And they are leading Britain's Backlash.

The comments are absolutely worth reading. Take this one from "Craig", resident of Hampstead village for nine year.




He is complaining that a cycle lane a mile away will devaluation the properties in Hampstead. That's an area where they are asking for £1.7M for a a flat, £3M for a house. So Craig, nine year resident, is worried that the resale value of his house will drop, by, what? a thousand pounds? Ten thousand? Because really it'd have to be a couple of hundred thousand pounds worth of devaluation.


And here's the irony. The sole reason that he has his £3.5M house is because in the 1970s, people fought to stop it having a motorway over it.



If the GLC had got its way then, the quaint little houses of Craig and others would be in the shadow on a par with London's Westway, a faint miasma of NOx and diesel particles infiltrating the house, adding extra flavour to the coffees their Nescafe-coffee pod cafe macchiatos, creating more traffic on every single road, and generally making the area even less pleasant to live in —as if having it full of people like Craig wasn't bad enough.

That was what London dodged: The ringway over Hampstead. Instead they got the status quo, which, with the vast cross-london school run, the emergence of diesel as the fuel of choice, killing those kids from NOx and lack of exercise. And yet these people don't want change —they expect to be able to drive round the city. First the school dropoff then on to the underground parking at Waitrose John Barnes, on to the gym for your spin class, up the road to pick up the children (Walk to school! Have them use public transport! Never!), then nip down to central london for a play or two, parking at westminster being outrageous, but well, so's the mortgage on a little Hampstead mews house, as is theatre tickets, what's another £30 on the evening —why, it's the amount of tip the au-pair would expect, isn't it?

Apparently there's a demonstration of support for the proposal on Friday, March 11. Us: we'd be more tempted to head to the anti demonstration to see who it is arguing against them —because they sound like the Donald Trump supporter of transport.

To close then, one last opposition comment: we can't have cycle paths in our cities because we have road, not canals.



If CS11 gets stopped, it'll because of people like this.

Aberystwyth Road, Bishopston

Time to catch up with the Aberystwyth Faction's proposals for an improved Gloucester Road -one that makes the bus lane tidal and so adds short-stay parking in the opposite direction.

We have now heard from the councillor behind the petition:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Willingham <David.Willingham@bristol.gov.uk>
Date: 17 December 2013 13:48
Subject: RE: Gloucester Road Parking Changes

  The petition neither mentions nor proposes making any changes to bus or cycle lanes as that is not what it is asking the council to change. 

  If you visit Gloucester Road, then you will find that there are various parking bays that could be brought into use to allow the traders to benefit from more passing trade during the peaks, without having a detrimental effect on cyclist safety.

  As a local cyclist who uses the Gloucester Road, I have no intention of trying to make it more dangerous for cyclists, and if done carefully and in the right locations, I believe the proposed change would make it possible to share the limited road space a little more efficiently.

  If the council do decide to act on this petition, then they would be required to perform a highways safety audit of any locations they intend to change, as well as statutory consultation on any changes, so all road users, local residents or traders could have their say.

Regards,

David
--
Cllr Dr David Willingham
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Bishopston ward

So there you go: it's about sharing the limited road space a little more efficiently.

If you look at the petition, it does call out the recessed parking bays outside  288 Gloucester Road -the original Maplins site -these changes are non-controversial and likely to be unopposed, except perhaps matched by some demands for bike parking alongside.

What is a flash point is going to be the sentence "Furthermore we call upon Bristol City Council to implement "tidal" parking on Gloucester Road,". Because its goals, "Parking on the inbound carriageway during the evening peak" means "no bus or bike lane inbound in the evening rush hour", while "Parking on the outbound carriageway during the morning peak." means the same in opposite direction.

This is where the controversy lies. What is being proposed here implies no bus lane to-and-from the North Fringe commute, which means

1. No bike lane for anyone heading to the north fringe
2. No bus lane for anyone trying to get the Wessex red busses. These are the ones used to get to and from UWE -and if the students can't go by bus or bike, that leaves car. We don't want that. They don't pay enough taxes to deserve any tarmac.
3. Anyone commuting by car up the north fringe is now going to get held up by congestion on the A38. As that's something that wasn't covered in the C4 documentary: what it was like to drive down Gloucester Road before the showcase routes were launched. It was much, much, worse. The buses would have to stop in your lane to let passengers on and off, and if there was a bus heading north stuck behind a minicab with its hazards  on near the minicab office, your road would block as the two buses would never be able to pass each other. Gloucester Road was only viable as a driving commute option on those days that the council was actually enforcing parking. Which is something you wouldn't know on the commute until you were committed. 

See that? No matter how you get to the North Fringe, car, bus or even bicycle, the showcase bus route benefits. We don't expect the motoring advocate groups to realise that, as Bob Bull of portishead, official spokesman of the ABD in the evening post, is too busy complaining about his journey along the portway to appreciate how the bus lane helps commuting by car.

We do fear that the bus companies will pick up on this -as will UWE. And the cyclists, well they are the all-powerful-cycle-lobby.

Gloucester Road is going to be flash point there.

• Statistics imply that Gloucester Road has the highest number of reporting cycling incidents. -if you add Cheltenham Road to the figures, the A38 stands out as either the busiest cycling route in the city, or one of the more hazardous. Notable is that the Railway Path, which has the highest use, doesn't appear on the list at all.
• Bristol Cycling Campaign's followups on police involvement in any of these incidents imply the outcome is "not interested". This has the potential to be an issue in its own right.
• Even the mountain bikers are getting involved in this. Because while they are happy doing things like the red bits on the Super Nova trail, they at least know if they do get it wrong, they won't have somebody on the phone drive straight over them.
• A lot of the North Fringe employers have Bicycle User Groups with group mailing lists -easily organised, and capable of co-opting driving colleagues into the battle.
• The cyclists have more influence in the national press.

Putting it together, the shops may think that a review of the bus lane and a tidal system may get wide support -after their success in ensuring they retain their commuter parking in the RPZ-, but they are potentially getting into trouble. How are they going to react if cycling campaigners start handing out leaflets saying "email your councillor" to cyclists waiting at junctions on gloucester road? Can they take the trade of cyclists for granted -or are they going to have to deal with people coming into the shops, creating queues at peak hours, then when they get to the counter announcing they won't shop there as the shopkeepers are endangering their lives.

This is going to one to watch.

As for now, at the time of writing (16:02, Wednesday December 18), the petitions stand at

• Cyclists for a better bike lane: 135
• Aberystwyth: 73.

That's gone in a week from about 62-63 each -the cycling petition doubling, the shopkeeper's going by ten. This should be a warning sign to the councillors: they run a risk of making more enemies than friends here.

cyclelanes4cash: has the traffic department "gone rogue"?

A subversive becoming known to us, Wheels on a bike, alerted us to this: cyclelanes4cash. A story he broke and which made the online cycling press. Well, with the Evening Post outing itself as nothing but an entertainment magazine, the online press, including bristol24x7 and the bristolian (also in print at various fine drinking establishments) are the news -news the post follows 2+ weeks later.

Anyway, Colston Street -from the centre to Park Row. The easiest cycle route up this hill, and so a popular alternative amongst the tax dodgers to "death by park row", which is not only steeper, it abandons you at the triangle with a forced left turn: precisely the wrong direction and option to reach the university alive.

It is also Sustrans route 4, London to Wales for the same reason. Due to its popularity, the council provides a cycle route up the hill.

Or to be precise: provided.

five car lengths worth of the bike lane were painted out and turned into paid parking spaces. why? So the council can raise money.

We don't support this. Why not?
1. We can already park for free in a bike lane
2. Paid parking spaces use up free bike lane parking
3. it forces cyclists into our way, be it the pavement or the road.

As it is a climb, keeping the marxists out of our way actually increased journey time, yet instead the council here is forcing them to get in front of us. And for what? £20K/year?
 
You can see where the paint has been melted over to create the spaces

Up the hill the red paint returns, showing that if the council were serious about revenue, they've got a lot left. This is a fact that must concern the cyclists, as now the traffic department has declared open season on every bike path in the city.
 
Specifically: if there is a bike lane along a road where there are some clear revenue opportunities, the bike lane is doomed.
   
The senior council management -Mayor George Fergus and Cllr Mark Bradshaw have claimed that they are reversing the change. Presumably it was that or face public ridicule and the need to update the 2014 bristol cycling maps by removing (more) of the bike lanes.

Maybe so, but it shows that the Traffic Planning department has gone completely rogue: looking after its revenue interests ahead of any other concern: not just the needs of those cycling tax-dodgers, but the needs of those of us driving up the hill who don't want to be held up by subversives who can't get above 6 mph on this hill.

The Downs Committee joins the Bikelash!

Attached to Clifton are "the downs". You can recognise it by the way that all paths on the park have a big "No Cycling" sign -usually near some parked cars






The nominal reason they have the no cycling sign is to stop pedestrians and parked cars being damaged by cyclists.

In high summer, the Downs committee allows the Zoo (in exchange for money, obviously), to let visitors park on the downs, and bill the visitors for doing so.

In 2010 proposals to provide a park and ride alternative, were, rightfully, rejected.



It's quite clear what the Downs Committee wants. Nobody cycling on the pavement, people driving to the downs and parking on the grass.

Even so, council plans threaten it -and this week it is with a shocking proposal to make the speed limit in the park 20 mph!

Fortunately, the committee has come out and rejected it.

PLANS to bring in a 20mph speed limit on roads around The Downs have been opposed by the committee responsible for the open space.

The Downs Committee – made up of councillors and representatives from the Merchant Venturers – considered the proposals at their meeting yesterdayand voted against them by four votes to two, with one abstention.

Councillor Peter Abraham said: "I feel very strongly about this and I think we should oppose the 20mph limit being brought in on roads around the Downs."

Merchant Venturer Andrew Densham said he had attempted driving along the stretch at 20mph before the meeting and was greeted by flashing lights from fellow motorists.

"It is almost impossible to do," he said. "Going 20mph is absurd on most of those roads.

"I think the consequences of it would be more dangerous."

Fellow Merchant Venturer Anthony Brown said: "The traffic sub-committee asked what the experience had been on Ladies Mile and was told the average speed was 26mph and there are no major problems.

"If the speed limit is reduced people would do 20,16,18 and people would want to overtake. It was our view that it could be more dangerous."

there we have it then. Total opposition to the proposals based on a single experiment of driving round at 20 mph, once, and noticing cars got upset.

We can expect the cycling campaigners to be a bit put out by this

1. Flat out refusal to provide safe alternatives to Ladies Mile or Sea Wall/ice cream van routes for bicycles
2. Flat out refusal to consider lower speed limits that would benefit cyclists or even pedestrians trying to cross the road.

The tax-dodgers should not be surprised by this.

Cllr Peter Abraham is the councillor for Stoke Bishop, whose residents have to drive over the downs to get anywhere. It's bad enough that the RPZ is going to remove a lot of parking opportunities, now they will be forced to drive a little bit slower.

As he said earlier.  :

I would much rather see the 30mph limit, which was only recently introduced, rigidly enforced. A 20 mph limit might be appropriate for some streets, but I think it will cause road rage incidents and a lot of frustration for motorists on The Downs."

See: the council has already forced the speed limit down from 60 mph to 30 only ten years ago, and it is hard enough for his electorate to handle

Lowering the speed limit in one of Bristol's main parks from 30 mph to 20 mph would only increase road rage, and, by encouraging people to walk and cycle round the park, increase problems!

This is why we support the actions of the Downs Committee. We also appreciate that many of the committee members are from the Society of Merchant Venturers. It is precisely because these people are chosen without democratic oversight that they are able to resist petty popularist policies like making parks safer for pedestrians and cyclists! Only they can represent the true voice of the evening post commenters!

Whiteladies Road Cycle Path: not dead, sleeping -says the council

The whiteladies road uphill path, the one covered over by a build-out for a new pedestrian crossing is not apparently, dead, merely sleeping. Instead some paint will go on the road showing cyclists where to go to end up under a bus. This is called "London-style infrastructure".

Adam Semy sends us a "before" link.



He also sticks up a "now" video


Adam thinks that in the video LS07CFM is beeping at the cyclists. We're not sure -they could be beeping at the BMW that was forced to swing out so as to get past the cyclist heading uphill.

This shows how the addition of build-outs actually makes things worse for drivers: we get held up by bicycles, or have to perform dangerous manoeuvres. Same for pinch points: the fact that they create car/cyclist conflict is as inconvenient for drivers as it is dangerous for cyclists.

Apparently the build-out is so that queueing parents with children and push chairs can wait safely for the lights to change. This shows something important: it's not a zebra crossing, where they wouldn't have to wait, but a pelican crossing where they do.

Presumably BCC and FirstBus didn't want a road and a showcase bus route to be help up by school parents -and if more people were walking to the new school, that is exactly what happened. This is why FirstBus also wanted the zebra crossing from the downs to Blackboy Hill removed -a want that got denied on the basis that "the students would cross anyway".

It's interesting to consider if a new zebra crossing lower down would delay traffic -because on a weekday morning it's a line of cars anyway. The fear of traffic flow impact is enough for a zebra crossing to be omitted, and for a cycle time on the lights long enough that even at school run times parents will have to wait. This is important: anything that hindered motor traffic flow at school run times would penalise school-running parents!

As for the cyclists, well, nobody will miss them. It's not as if they can ask for the money spent in the name of "cycling city" back. They'll see that when BRT2 goes over Prince Street Bridge.

What it does show is this: Clifton is the heart of the Bikelash -the part of the city fighting back against bicycles, one TRO at a time.

Suspension Bridge: last day to get your responses in

This is the last day to get some feedback in to the Suspension Bridge Proposal,  -the council page has the details.

The BBC also covers it, saying the plans will make it "more pedestrian and environmentally-friendly "

We fail to see at all how this makes it more environmentally friendly at all. It tries to slow us down, but as we can go up to 30 mph once the speed bump is cleared, that doesn't save any fuel or CO2.

It doesn't encourage cycling to the bridge, because it doesn't encourage cycling.

And yes, it may be "pedestrian friendly", but as the pedestrians they have in mind are walking round from the coach parking bay, that's not very environmentally friendly.

Are we going to write in opposing this measure? We are unsure. Given all it does is add a speed bump and a pinch point, it doesn't make that much difference: another 10 seconds of sitting 50cm behind a cycling family nervously worrying about our revving engine -and we'd do that for fun anyway.

 
The tax dodgers, now they may want to say "there is nothing environmentally friendly about a proposal that makes it even more hazardous and bicycle unfriendly"

This is why we are not at all surprised to read this objection.

We're a bit worried about their grand vision of making the Suspension Bridge a cycling gateway to the city. We don't want more cyclists and making all the bridges dangerous can do that -the "London Style Cycle Route" plan.

Fortunately, we are confident that the traffic planners handling the Clifton area see eye-to-eye with us, what with the new Pinch Points on Whiteladies road and the Triangle, and the (currently on hold) proposal to add parking to Clifton to make it worse to cycle.



From: SteveL
Date: 31 July 2013 17:58
Subject: response to proposed improvement works Suspension Bridge Road area
To: david.sarson@bristol.gov.uk

David,

I am writing to object to the current plans for the bridge on the basis that not only does if fail to identify and address the current cycling hazards, the addition of a pinch point will make it worse, I propose instead a cross-bridge plan to make the bridge a safe and more popular cycle route, and so enable the city to achieve its cycling goals.

Summary

• The proposal will actually make exiting the bridge on a bicycle even more dangerous than it is today, especially for families and young cyclists.
• The bridge exit and entrance plans need to be urgently reviewed by stakeholders in safer cycling: the council cycling officers, the cycling campaign, the cycling team in the N. Somerset council. 
• There is a opportunity here to begin to implement a coherent design for a safe cycle route over the bridge, spanning the Abbots Leigh side, the bridge itself and the Clifton side. 

As it stands the proposal appears to be using myself and my son as a traffic calming measure in the name of  pedestrian safety. 

I cycle over the bridge three times a week on my own, addressing the risks by cycling fast and taking the lane, despite the frustration that builds up in the vehicles behind. I also cycle with my family, including my 11 year old son. It is he that I'm worried about.

Here is the experience of trying to cycle across the bridge today:

The approach has a a bike lane painted on it that is too narrow to be safe, runs into the parked cars at the bridge, and effective vanishes at the pinch point created by the central barrier. All it does is create unrealistic expectations in drivers that the cycles are not to be in their way.

The drop off to the road from the toll bypass is not in a good position. In fact, the new toll booths "to improve traffic flow" make it worse when cycling, is there is now a shorter interval between cars. When an adult is trying to get a child out as well as themselves, this change is noticeable.

The bridge crossing itself is usually relatively calm, though you invariably end up with a car driving behind you, waiting to get past. Sometimes they do this on the bridge, which, with the oncoming traffic means that they tend to cut in as soon as they can. Thankfully, this is rare.

It is the exits that are most problematic.

1. After being held up by cyclists -in the case if a family group, slow moving cyclists, by the end of the crossing the impatient drivers invariably want to get past them.
2. Because the central reservation prevents them front doing so safely, yet the slightly wider road invites the possibility. Here there is a tangible risk of a collision with a car trying to squeeze past.
3. On my own, I can stay at 15-20 mph, stay far enough out in the lane to block the cars. I continue like this until the reservation goes away. At this point I can move to the left, where there currently is enough space to go, and let the cars past.
4. With a family, getting on the bridge is harder, crossing it mildly worrying, but it is that exit that I fear. With a family you've taken longer to get across, the number of vehicles behind will be higher, and the other family members lack the speed and aggression to "take the lane". It's is where we are most at risk. 
5. If there was somewhere to pull over, I'd be tempted to get my family to do so -but instead we have echelon parking bays where vehicles reversing out become yet another hazard.
6. Once past the area with the central reservation, it becomes safe to cycle again, as we can keep to the side and let the cars that have been held up past.

It is at this point where cars can pass safely that a pinch point -the build out- is proposed. The area where my family and I can cycle leisurely while cars go past is to be replaced with a road where I will need to aggressively pull out and block the cars so that my family can safely cycle. Any cyclist without fitness and aggression will be in trouble.

review of the plans

• The build out/pinch-point represents a significant new danger to cyclists -it is critical that this is dropped. It endangers cyclists while failing to provide a significant improvement in pedestrian safety.
• The raised areas are likely to be slippery in the wet or ice. Whatever material is used it must be a high friction surface.
• The failure to recognise and address the exit-side cycle safety issues: the central reservation and the echelon parking -mean that the existing features will remain hazardous.
• The failure to identify and address the hazards on the approach: the unusable cycle lane, the pinch point created as the central reservation appears, and the now shorter safe period to exit the tool booth bypass means that it is just as hazardous as ever.
• The coach parking will remove part of Clifton Down. Dedicated coach parking cold be provided further round the corner- this would also handle the situation where more than one coach visits. The space for such parking will be made available once Clifton becomes an RPZ.

Overall then, it is a disappointing design that implies that the needs of cyclists have been completely neglected - more effort has been put in to provide coach parking than a safe and pleasant cycle experience.

Here then, is a counter proposal.

Making Clifton Suspension Bridge a cycling gateway to the city

Rather than ignore the needs of cyclists, recognise that the bridge is a key commuter and leisure route for cycling -and could easily be made a key destination for visitors to the city who come by bicycle.

1. The parking areas on the  bridge exits to are removed. On the Somerset side a segregated cycle path can be implemented -it must be segregated to prevent it being downgraded to parking. On the Clifton side, I propose providing cycle parking and a permanent bay for the ice cream van, which will no longer need to occupy the cycling approach to the bridge.
2. The pavement on the Clifton approach should be widened, the bushes cut back, and a cycle lane installed on it -by raising the currently allocated on-road cycle lane. 
3. The Abbots Leigh approach should have a gradual reduction in speed limits starting before the bridge itself is reached. I believe there is also room of a segregated cycle path on this approach.
4. A means is provided for cycles to go on the left side rather than the right side of the gatehouse. It's was of course a requirement when bicycles had to pay the toll, so is demonstrably possible.
5. A cycle traffic sensor is installed in the toll booth bypasses, a sensor which keeps the barriers down when bicycles are passing through. It's I'd entirely consistent with the councils's hierarchy of provision model. This. Sensor could also collect cycle traffic statistics.
6. The bridge speed is lowered to 15 mph. It was 20 mph until the mid 1990s, to no ill effect. Reducing e speed would remove unrealistic expectations from car drivers as to how fast they can safely driver over the bridge.
7. The actual road at both ends is converted into a shared space are where pedestrians have priority. This should eliminate the need for a central reservation, the build out and the speed bumps. The surface must still be high friction in the wet.
8. Vistors to Bristol and clifton are encouraged to explore the city and environs by bicycle, with signing to link up the Railway Path, the proposed Avon Promenade, Festival Way and the suspension bridge, as well as more signage from Templemeads and Clifton Down stations.

This may seem an ambitious plan, but it is necessary. the bridge is a key cycle roué in and out the city, popular with commuters, leisure cyclists, be they road or MTB, and families. West of Templemeads it is one is one of the sole two crossings that are relatively safe and pleasant to cycle., of the The other, by Hotwells, has the BRT2 route planned for it, and while it will remain open to bicycles, the BRT building will take it out of action for some time -diverting more cyclists to the bridge. The growth in cycling and diverted traffic means that making the bridge safer to cycle over is essential -especially now that the Long-Ashton extension of Festival Way is designed to bring in more cycling traffic.

The bridge can form a a key access point to a city with ambitious cycling goals -an access point which my proposal offers. The overall plan may take time to be implemented, but individual parts of the grander proposal can be -of which the Clifton side, the gateway to the city, must be a core part.

If the council is unwilling to draw up ambitious plans to upgrade key cycle access points to make the safer and sustain a higher load, then the city's overall plans to increase the percentage of cycle traffic is doomed. This bridge proposal, then, represents a test of where the city really wants to go.

Suspension Bridge Video -and some cyclists dare to complain?

Following on from the Suspension Bridge Anti-cycling proposal, we sent an expendable cyclist over the bridge to view it from their perspective, rather than ours (they pay nothing and hold us up)


This is a saturday and traffic is quiet, apart from Mercedes GY62KKT trying to turn over the cyclist at 0:10, not much happens.

• 0:15 The tax dodger is not nice and stays out the cycle path provided for them
• 0:25: the normal ice-cream van in the bike path has been replaced by an ice-cream bicycle on the pavement. Shocking.
• 0:30: some pedestrians walk across the bridge. They should recognise that drivers have paid to be there and not walk around. This is why they are not allowed to cross in the centre of the bridge area.
• 0:34-0:39. Tax dodger becomes a toll-dodger by swerving into a dedicated bicycle bypass, before jumping off the kerb ahead of the low-visibility dropped exit point
• 0:40-1:06. Toll dodger cycles over the bridge. There are three oncoming cyclists, showing that nobody is paying for its upkeep. It also shows that there is pent-up-suppression needed for this crossing, which we are grateful for Bristol Council to provide.
• 1:14-1:3. Toll dodger exits the bridge, but the central barrier again stops anyone important trying to get past -no matter how much of a hurry they are in. There isn't quite enough room unless they pull over into the echelon-parking bays. We really need signs saying "cyclists pull over to let paying users past"

That's it then: the bridge on a summer saturday from a tax dodger's perspective. They ignore the cycle lanes that we paid for from road tax, yet choose to use the toll booth bypass when they want to. Then they pootle across potentially holding up traffic -not just on the bridge, but at the exit.

The consultation isn't going to do anything to address these hold ups -the barriers will remain in place. there will be some speed-pavements on the approach (0:20-ish), but you need to slow for the queue means that has no impact. Hopefully they will be made of slippery bricks that will drop roadies out for a wiggins-worship weekender.

Suspension Bridge Upgrade: making cyclists less welcome

Clifton is the home of Bristol's bikelash, so we are glad to announce another council proposal to make cycling there less pleasant. This is a particularly good new feature as it is designed to impact even passing-through and leisure cyclists. By placing it at the entrance to the city, cyclists will immediately know that this city does not welcome them.

The proposals are for some traffic calming measures at the Clifton side of the Suspension Bridge.

1. some raised pavement things
2. a buildout before the left turn to Observatory Road
3. A bit of the downs turned into tarmac coach parking
4. that's it.

Here is what the approach looks like today. A wide road with some paint in the gutter to remind cyclists to get out of the way.

A central reservation appears, just at the corner where even cars are forced into the gutter.

The risk of hitting a cyclist here is so high we think they should be banned -if not formally, then informally, the way they are at the Bedminster and Templemeads bridges/roundabouts.

Looking the other way, you can see a 30 mph sign indicating that this is a driving part of the city and you can put your foot down

The road here widens. but not quite enough to get past those cyclists who are not following the niceway code -and are instead holding us up.

 
You have to wait until the central barrier goes before you can speed up and get past them.
 
Yet it is up ahead here, at the approaching left turn, that a build out will be added. This will mean that not-nice cyclists will stay in the middle of the lane, while even nicewaycode cyclists who stay in the gutter will suddenly swing out.

This gives us mixed feelings. Pro: it makes it worse for cycling. Con: those few who do cycle will inconvenience us more.

Have a look at the plans -and write in to the Council by Aug 5 to let them know whether you approve or not!

This is why the Battle for Flax Bourton must be won now

Some people must have seen our post and and an estimate of 30-40 bicycles an hour and peak times and thought "so what?

This is what. This is the bike path that the petitioners harassed the Elf King himself, about, the one in jeopardy, the one he said should only be built if the sheep used their existing cycle paths. As far as Flax Bourton is concerned, using those cycle paths is bad enough. When this route is finished, their quiet life will be destroyed.

Look at it. 3-4 metres, wide, already built out, with the trees cut back. Raised enough to make it hard to swing onto. And already being scoped out.

The narrowing of the road means that the paint between the the lanes will be removed, forcing us to drive slower. If the 50 mph speed limit is dropped to 30, that will add another minute to the Flax Bourton to Long Ashton school run, again, threatening a lifestyle people paid into.

   
Look at it. Our tax money. It's on the opposite side of the road from the footpath, so there won't be "badly behaved cyclists" "riding on pavements amidst pedestrians". No, they will be cycling as fast as they do now -sprinting to and from Backwell, on this new £1.2M route running parallel to the A370.

Every one of those cyclists could endanger a motorist.

The Elf King said he wouldn't pay attention to petitions from people outside Long Ashton, pressuring him to build this blatant war-on-motoring facility. Well, he caved in. Hopefully he'll listen to the next petition, from local folk.

"Local Roads for Local People! And better commuter routes into the Bristol City Centre"

This is what we want!

The festival way: exposing Long Ashton to the city

Why all of a sudden the problems? When the Flax Bourton to Backwell route has existed for over a year? It's this: a wide bike path from Ashton Court to the western end of Long Ashton.

It runs parallel to the A370, it doesn't have the cars or buses of the Long Ashton road, and even runs alongside the schools.
 

It's designed to give the cyclists an A-road of their own. And because of that, they are coming out. Which is making Flax Bourton suffer.

Back in September, Elf King Ap Rees, leader of the Somerset-Elf-Folk, said "We're spending all this money on cycle ways and yet I'm always getting complaint that say the cyclists don't use them -they use the roads instead!".

It turns out worse than this. Some of the cyclists are using the cycle ways that they spent all the money on -and endangering people by doing so.

When we visited Rosemount Road on a (sunny) February sunday, we saw three cyclists in the space of five minutes. At that rate: thirty six an hour. Thirty-six cyclists that are cyclists are "posing a danger to pedestrians and motorists". And behind it all -the council trying to change the residents behaviour, to make them cycle with their families to school, then on to the city.

Farleigh Green Residents Association chairman Michael Barnes said: "Now the Festival Way route is completed we are seeing a lot more cyclists coming through the estate.

"The issue for residents is safety as the route follows narrow roads through the estate with the longest having no pavements.

"There are at least three blind corners giving no visibility for motorists, cyclists or pedestrians and there have been several collisions and many near misses involving cars, pedestrians, children and cyclists."

He added: "We are not anti-cycling and many of us enjoy cycling."

We have some bad news:  if you think it is bad now, it will only get worse.

Rosemount Road, Flax Bourton -ruined by the cyclists

The residents of Rosemount Road, Flax Bourton didn't just move the countryside for fields and trees.

They moved for the rural dream: a cottage like house with room for two cars. One for one of the parents -and in modern society, that could be the dad- to drop the kids off at school in Long Ashton before driving into the city; the other for the other parent to go straight in down the A370, via a short stretch of road.


Already Bristol city threaten this dream, with their war on motoring. Closing Prince Street Bridge to through traffic makes getting from the south of the city harder. Imposing 20 mph speed limits in South Bristol has killed the rat-runs, leaving only the traffic-clogged Coronation Road. Adding residents parking in Redcliffe has even destroyed some of the near-city parking available to Somerset commuters.

All this was bad enough, but now the city is bringing the war on motorists to the villages!

Look above: a nice cul-de-sac; lots of space to turn around in.

But turn 180 degrees round and what do you see


That's right -a bike route. Going all the way from Flax Bourton to Backwell. And its used! You can see above, that even on a February weekend there is someone out there pretending to enjoy themselves

 

Look at the quality of it! Can you not see what the council is trying to do here -it's not just encouraging cyclists from the city to come out, it's trying to change the behaviour of the residents themselves! It's trying to say "why drive? Why not cycle to Nailsea and get a train into the city or Abbey Wood at the North Fringe?" It's saying "why not go for a bike ride -for fun- with your family on a weekend?" It's saying: you should consider cycling to work in the city
 

In the distance, you can see them: the cyclists. They are coming.

This is why the village has to act. If they do not, they will be turned into the mindless Dutch-style families that Bristol is trying force down our throats.

If they wanted to cycle, they'd live in Southville or Montpelier! Instead they chose to move out here, to realise a dream of a quiet road, two cars, and a drive down the A370 every morning. All this will be destroyed by the council -unless they can persuade the council to change its mind, and ban cyclists from these roads.
 

"we're not anti-cycling, but" -flax bourton joins the bikelash

This site has been quiet recently -but then our business model isn't based on having a high visitor count and then selling adverts to advertisers who want to sell things to those people who visit the site regularly (i.e. losers). We haven't been visiting the evening post much either, not since they started demanding access to the contact details of all gmail accounts.

Today though, something draws us in again: the bikelash is back.

The last decent bikelash we had in the area was in Long Ashton, where the Elf-King himself proclaimed that cyclists were arrogant and that trying to petition him to complete a bike path was sheep-like.

Today, just east of Long Ashton, the village of Flax Bourton joins in the Evening Post Official Bikelash!

Yes, in a picturesque modern rural housing estate, residents are warning that cyclists are a risk to pedestrians and car drivers!

Here is the area.

Rosemount Road is a classic example of a late twentieth century, early 21st interpretation of that rural dream, a country village.

In the background, the birdsong-like hum of the A370, offering the elf-folk access to the city, or Bristol airport, if that is their place of employ. (some day we should cover the airport. If it weren't so anti-all-other-modes-of-transport, including flight, we'd accuse it of being at war with motorists).



Like a traditional village, there are no pavements, just verges to drive over and so justify the 4x4.

 
Like a tradional village there is always somebody petty with a keep of the grass sign and stones to mark their territory.

Unlike the city, there is room for more than one car per household. And, when washing your car on a Sunday afternoon, you can leave the door open without fear that your car will be stolen and the insurance company laugh at you for doing so.
 

According to Zoopla, these houses sell for just under £500K, money well spent to get away from the city and its stress.
In these quiet cul-de-sacs, there is enough space for children to happily bounce and scoot around without fear of being killed by a passing bicycle.

But not anymore. Not now that Somerset council is partway through bulding a quality off-road bike path all the way from the city centre to this rural dream.


They are trying to bring the city to the countryside, to destroy the rural commuter lifestyle these people have worked so hard to attain.

This is the front line in the Bikelash!

Elf-King Ap-Rees: get the sheep-like cyclists off the roads

There's a BBC Radio Broadcase in which Elf-King Ap-Rees, Deputy-King of the Elf-Kingdom of North Somerset, denounces cyclists as arrogant as the "cyclists use the cycle ways instead of arrogantly ignoring them and cycling on adjacent roads".

The issue was a petition"ill-judged and unnecessary" that stirred up people to sign a petition that demanded that the council actually approved of the cycle path by the 50 mph road from Long Ashton to Cambridge Batch. It was always going to be built, just "a bit of a quibble" with Long Ashton Parish Council. Like the way they slowed down the provisioning of a cycle route alongside the A370 by Ashton Court -there were concerns that the council would reject it the way they rejected the Ashton Court stretch of the route -the bit that would cut across the newly-expanded Ashton Court car park.

"We're spending all this money on cycle ways and yet I'm always getting complaint that say the cyclists don't use them -they use the roads instead!"

 Why is his language so inflammatory?

"I'm glad it is! I want cyclists to realise that other people see this money being spent on cycle ways and actually object when the cyclists don't use it. Especially when we have 60 mph roads, and we have a cycle way absolutely adjacent to it -and yet you still find cyclists using that (ed: the road?). They cycle through pedestrian areas, you know, which they're not supposed to do..."

why have you approved this then?

"We want to encourage cycling. We want to encourage cyclists to use the cycle ways. What I'm hoping is that as a result of this...and it's not everybody, you just get a few cyclists -just as you get a few motorists doing things wrong. The trouble is they set a bad example -erm- to everybody else"

People who don't live in the vicinity of Long Ashton have no influence over the decision as as they "have one sheep-like point of view "

Elf King App Rees is the one politician who will stand up and say the prejudiced ill-informed views that we live by! Only he is the one not afraid to call cyclists sheep-like. Indeed, he's proud of it!

"I'm always getting complaints from people about the behaviour of cyclists..."

That said, we don't like this idea of saying "local decisions only". Because that's going to come back to haunt the commuters of N Somerset when Bristol City starts rolling out anti-commuter strategies like speed limits.

Similarly, we worry about the quote : "North Somerset Council has to consider all road users and the decision will be made with that in mind, not to just satisfy a cycling lobby."

This surprised us as we didn't know there was a cycling lobby in N. Somerset. That phrase "all road users" scares us. Why should we -the tax payers- care about the cyclists? If he's going to start taking their interests into account, what will this mean to  features like the new Portishead/M5 junction, where the Elf King said "the misery of prolonged hold-ups for motorists in this area should be a thing of the past.". See that? No need to acknowledge the existence of cyclists there, let alone the need to consider them at a new junction. Similarly, when he's considering parking charges in Portishead, will he actually worry about the needs of tax-dodgers who may want to cycle there rather than all the people who petitioned against the charges? We hope not!

Finally, "sheep-like". Again, that could equally well be applied to most of the people who write to him complaining about tax-dodging cyclists being in the way on the roads or on the pavements. That's the same class of insult as one of the two groups on the Evening Post comment pages calling the other lot "inflexible and narrow minded". No, you don't want to go there.

Elf-King App Rees does like those emails complaining about cyclists, so feel free to contact him on such topics, or where he stands on the battle of Mordor.

While we know he doesn't accept emails from cyclists outside the Elf Kingdom of Long Ashton, we don't yet know if he loves getting message from outside the Shire congratulating him on being the first Evening Post commenter to get radio time on a regional station listened two by a double-digit audience!

cycling city: removing pavement space from motorists

One thing that Cllr Gollop -the Official Bristol Traffic approved councillor - raised in his Bikelash speech is the space taken from important road users by cycling facilities. What's been taken away? Pavement parking opportunities

This pickup, Y66TAN, whose passenger is in buying something at Quiznos on Stapelton Road is forced to carefully squeeze between the new bike racks and the railings on the other side.

Those are the railings of the large empty car park for both Quizno's and the supermarket. Yes, the pickup could have driven in there, but that would have taken more time, and the thing about important people is this: they are in a hurry, and their time is more valuable than pedestrians, cyclists or bus passengers. After all, these are the slow ways to get around. Nobody in a hurry would use them.

The bikelash has arrived!

Over in New York, there's a fantastic power struggle going on, as important politicians fight troublemaking cyclists, to try and get a segregated bike path removed. There's a good summary online, by the economist John Cassidy. Sadly he, gets criticised not just by the usual activists, but by other economists. That worries us. If the people we trust to run the banks and get the global economy out of the mess the banks and the economists got it into can't even agree on how bad bicycles are for a city, well, it's not a good start. How can they come with a plan for the global economy that works if they can't even agree that bicycles and pedestrians don't belong in modern cities.

Here in Bristol, Cllr Gollop is one person who has taken a public stance, denouncing the Cycling City program for spending money, not increasing the number of cyclists they promised, and for taking away road space from us, the important people.:

"The Cycling City initiative brought in match-funding which has delivered new cycling routes but these have largely been achieved at the expense of the majority of road users - by reducing road space or capacity.

This is why Cllr -soon to be Mayor- Gollop is in the lead for the 2010 Bristol Traffic "councillor of the year" award. He's our kind of councillor.

Some of the cycling troublemakers have been asking "where are all the bits of road that Cllr Glossop said had been taken away for bicycles". That's tough -we had to nip out and get one of those cycle bristol maps and do some research.

1. Bike lanes? Same as ever: short stay parking.
2. Keep clear zones at school? Same as ever, though some yellow lines are going in -lines we can't blame on the bicycles.
3. The Kingsdown RPZ? The locals voted it for it so they'd have the opportunity to park after going for a drive. Selfish actions by inner city troublemakers, but not cycling-city work.
4. Bike Parking? Yes, this has taken space away, something to cover later.
5. 20 mph zones? A topic for another day.

What about the dedicated routes? In the city, the Farm Pub Path (tm) and the Eastville Park to UWE route all go through parks. We'd like roads there, so you could say it's a wasted opportunity, but it's not really taking up space. For economists, that's "opportunity cost", what you could have done with the money instead. Still, every segregated bike path is a bus route in waiting, as we and West of England Partnership say. As for the Hartcliffe way route -we've found that provides extra parking.

It seems to us, the things that have got worse over the cycling city timescale then are

• The removal of paveparking opportunities
• The 20 mph zone
• The increased cost of driving
• The showcase bus routes.

None of the cycling facilities have directly taken away any roadspace from cars.

What then was Cllr Glossop trying to say -what did he really mean? He meant this

To us, the important people of the city, the Cycling City program is a failure because the number of people on bicycles and hence in our way has increased.

It doesn't matter that no direct road space has been taken away in the inner city apart from eight paid parking spaces --the mere presence of bicycles slows us down. The fact that these people pay nothing while the cost of driving continually increases makes us even more angry.

This is of course the Daily Mail commenter line, but everyone is afraid to come out and say it. Not us, not John Cassidy -and not a lot of Evening Post commenters, but they don't make the proper economic argument. We shall.

Every bicycle holds up traffic, so while the private costs of a bicycle are low, the external cost is high. A bicycle occupying a whole lane takes up as much space as a car -and because it's going at half the speed, it slows down the cars behind it more than a single car would. The congestion cost of a bicycle is therefore higher than that of a motor car!

That's the real issue with the Cycling City. Not the infrastructure, not just the parking -taking away our pavements. It's the increase in bicycles on what the cycle planners call the key cycle routes to the city, but for which we have a different name: the main roads.

We've been saying this since 2008. Us, on our own, sometimes with help a couple of times a week from the niche papers the Evening Post and the Daily Mail. The BBC, they're on our side with Top Gear, but that's relegated to BBC2 now, and in their news broadcasts they don't often have people that speak our language. Even the AA, the RAC and the Association of British Drivers don't come out and spell out the real costs that cycling imposes on our city. As far as politics goes, we have Glossop and the Ministers Hammond and Pickles on our side -but the only party that wants to ban bicycles from important roads was the UK Independence Party. Nobody else speaks our language.

This is changing. Welcome to the bikelash.

[For anyone wishing to congratulate the councillor, his contact details are online. Why not email him and congratulate him for being on our side!]

The BBC: we know they are on our side

Lot's of fuss yesterday about whether the Cycle City program achieved its goals, with an oddly pro-bicycle program on the radio, while in print our opinions get covered, at least by the conservative party:

"Whilst we recognise the merits of promoting cycling as a leisure activity for the individual - delivering personal health benefits and helping to improve the environment for all - this form of travel is unlikely in the near future to be a major means of commuting.

We ourselves aren't convinced that it should be encouraged as a leisure activity if it slows down important people -and the same goes for walking. There could be designated "leisure areas" -call them parks- to which people could drive and try walking and cycling before driving home.

Like we say, we were a bit disappointed by the radio program, as it viewed the fact that the number of cyclists on the road to meet the ambitious goals of the city as "a failure". The fact that there are more now than ever before is what constitutes the failure in our eyes. It has legitimised cycling in some parts of the community.

We are surprised therefore that the BBC radio took such a pro cycling stance in the radio program, because they are uusally on our side. Top-Gear, Horizon documenting car crashes safety improvements without discussing the fact that some of the most expensive cars on sale have the worst pedestrian safety scores.

They are on our side for the following reason: they are important, so they drive to work. That means not stopping for anyone even walking a bicycle over a zebra crossing, here on Whiteladies Road, just by the BBC offices.

Note however, the driver of F59XHW doesn't drive down the bus lane before the left turn, it always indicate before turning. We would drive down the lane and then turn without indicating, and we think Jeremy Clarkson would too. Signalling communicates intent to the opposition.