Brazza Shocka! - "Cycling City in decline"

Labour's transport spokesperson and former Executive Member for transport on Bristol City Council, Mark Bradshaw, has publicly criticised the Cycling City project that he was instrumental in 'winning' for Bristol just a year ago. Although the project has been widely criticised by cycling interests in Bristol, including of course this blogger, it has up till now enjoyed cross-party support from the elected members of the council.



Bradshaw's criticisms were first made public a few days ago when he commented on the Internet forum Twitter, accusing the Lib-Dems (who only took over in February this year) of "letting Cycling City role wither". This is an odd accusation to make when his Labour administration hadn't even managed to appoint a Project Manager in the 8 months that they were running the project. Poor 'interim' management was widely held to be responsible for most of the problems experienced during the first year.

Bradshaw's latest criticism, posted on Twitter on Monday, was that "Cycling City has now stalled and is in decline". This is an extraordinary comment, considering that Bradshaw forged close links with many of the senior transport and planning officers during his 22 months as Executive Member. It is quite possible that he is reflecting the private views of senior officers. Perhaps it is now recognised that Cycling City cannot achieve its over ambitious targets and Bradshaw sees this as the chance to distance himself.



Another surprising Bradshaw Cycling City comment of the last few days is his assertion that the "opportunity for radical new thinking to achieve big shift being missed". Given the utterly uninspiring approach taken by Cycling City under Bradshaw's watch one can only wonder what "radical new thinking" he has in mind. Twitter's post limit of 140 characters doesn't allow for the exposition of any detail - perhaps why some politicians find it a comfortable medium.

Railway Path & BRT - Putting the Record Straight.

With electioneering in full swing and some marginal wards along the Railway Path corridor to be fought for, it's not surprising that Political Parties are playing up their involvement in stalling the plan to run Bus Rapid Transit down the Railway Path. The Greens are certainly entitled to do so, as are the Liberal Democrats who eventually came out against BRT on the Path despite their involvement in earlier stages of the plan's development.



But Labour have been trying to paint themselves as saviours of the Railway Path too, which might raise a few eyebrows amongst the hundreds involved in last year's hard fought campaign to persuade the Labour administration of Bristol City Council to drop the BRT plans. Mark Bradshaw, the Executive Member for transport from May 2007 until February 2009 has been prominent in making such claims and I've had a few run-ins with him on Twitter (see also my Tweets in the sidebar to the right).



But worst of all, as reported by the Bristol Blogger, was the leaflet distributed on behalf of Labour's candidate for Easton, Mohammed Arif. Apart from tastelessly using a picture of of a prominent local Green, Pete Taylor, who died recently, Labour were guilty of misrepresentation in that the petition being received by the Labour councillor in the picture was against the degradation of the Railway Path by the Chocolate Factory development and was nothing to do with the BRT plan.


Pete Taylor, supported by local campaigners including other Green Party activists, presents his Chocolate Factory petition to Labour Cllr Faruk Choudhury and Mohammed Arif (right) earlier this year.

So let's recap what happened over BRT and the Railway Path early last year.

From May 2007 Labour were running the council (with Tory support) and Mark Bradshaw was the Executive Member for transport and development. As such he also had a key role with the West of England Partnership. He 'inherited' a range of initiatives including the BRT plans to use the Railway Path.

Following widespread publicity from January 2008 onwards opposition to BRT on the Railway Path grew massively and the Green Party were early supporters of the campaign, although individual members of other parties were also prominent, for example Paul Smith, Labour's PPC for Bristol West.

Green Councillor Charlie Bolton submitted a motion to the April 1st 2008 Full Council meeting which was subsequently amended and supported by the Lib Dems to read (my emphasis) -

Council notes the strength of feeling expressed by citizens of Bristol against the proposed bus rapid transit route along the much loved Bristol-Bath railway path. Council further recognises that cycling is a more sustainable transport solution than the use of public transport, and that as well as a ‘commute route’ the railway path is a valuable resource for local people for walking, cycling and enjoying the countryside in the heart of the town.

As such, while recognising the vital importance of improving public transport in Bristol, council regards the use of the railway path for bus rapid transit as an inappropriate solution. Council demands that the railway path option is dropped and concentration is given to other routes.

Council calls on the Executive Member for Access and Transport to pass these views on to the West of England Partnership and to make clear to partners and government that this route is unacceptable.

Council further calls for extra investment in the path to enhance the experience of walkers and cyclists including measures to improve public safety and believes that this will enhance Bristol chances of becoming Britain’s first cycling city.

The strong wording - "inappropriate; council demands that option is dropped; unacceptable" is unequivocal and would have killed off the BRT on Path plan completely. However Labour, with Conservative support, defeated this motion by bringing in a 'wrecking amendment' which read as follows -

"Council notes the strength of feeling expressed by the citizens of Bristol against the possible shared use by rapid transit of the much loved Bristol-Bath cycle path."

"Council further recognises that walking and cycling are vital components of the strategy to encourage more sustainable and healthier travel behaviour in our city."

"While fully recognising the vital importance of improving public transport, Bristol City Council will oppose route proposals which undermine the current and future expansion of walking and cycling in Bristol, and, in particular, will oppose any threat to the current or future use of the Bristol to Bath cycle path."

"Council requires further information about the various route options, including those on roads and for these to be the subject of full public consultation."

"Council fully supports the Executive Member for Access & Environment in making these views known to the West of England Partnership."

There was a long debate on this on The Bristol Blogger but most commenters seemed to agree that the Labour motion consisted of weasel words which could be interpreted in whatever way suited the politicians and were basically meaningless, so keeping the threat from BRT to live another day.

Cycling City - Labour's Lies Unravel

When Lib-Dem councillor Jon Rogers took over Bristol City Council's transport brief from Labour's Mark Bradshaw last month he called for a more open and accountable approach, particularly as far as Bristol's Cycling City project was concerned, and rightly so. But can he have imagined how much deceit would be revealed?


River Street -new cycle infrastructure, apparently.

Bristol was awarded Cycling City status last June and the then Labour administration wasted no time in presenting visions of great things to come. Remember talk of a citywide bike hire scheme modeled on Paris' Velib scheme? Remember talk of traffic wardens on bicycles booking motorists for blocking cycle lanes? Remember talk about making the whole city centre traffic free? Then the autumn of reality came and those first green shoots turned to dead leaves, to be quietly cast onto the compost heap of political hype.

This year's crop of green shoots appeared early with this Press Release in February, promising us £17.6 million worth of infrastructure improvements comprising 13 miles of new cycle track, 18 miles of improvements to existing off-road tracks and 21 miles of on-road improvements on major routes into the city. That's a total of 52 miles of route which sounds impressive....until you look into it. For a start 39 miles of that is just existing route which, it is claimed, will be improved in some way, which could be quite minor stuff like putting in street lights or signing.



So really we're looking at just 13 miles of allegedly new cycle 'track'. But watch out for those Nulabour weasel words - cycle 'track' isn't the same as cycle 'route'. An existing cycle route might have a cycle track built along side it and then become counted as 'new' infrastructure, yet for practical purposes little may be gained.

One such example is Hartcliffe Way (above), where cyclists already have the use of the carriageway (the road - safer when going downhill) and the shared use footway (useful when you're going uphill and perfectly adequate given the minimal number of cyclists and pedestrians), so what is to be gained by building yet another path/track/route (call it what you will) on the other side of the road?

Today, just hours before tonight's meeting of the Cycling City Stakeholders' Panel, more details of the proposed routes and links are being made available on-line. At the time of blogging we have 17 elements posted, although the details remain sketchy in many cases. But there's enough there to attempt a rough and ready analysis of what's being 'offered', which I've done as follows-

1. Elements that have been implemented irrespective of Cycling City and none of which provide significant new infrastructure - Lawrence Hill overbridge, River Street (reinstates what was there before - see pic above), Mead's Reach Bridge (simply replaces Valentine's bridge).
2. Elements of little if any benefit to cyclists - Prince Street Bridge, Dovercourt road to Bonnington Walk .
3. Elements that already exist, to be 'upgraded' but with little benefit to cyclists - Hartcliffe Way, Long Ashton Road, Cumberland Basin Road, Speedwell link, St Georges Park link, St Matthias Park (Cabot Circus).
4. Elements of existing cycle route to be upgraded with significant benefits to cyclists - Ashley Vale Allotments
5. Elements of new cycle route but of limited benefit to cyclists - Connect2 Ashton Court, Stapleton Road, Hengrove Park links.
6. Elements of new cycle route potentially with significant benefits - Muller Road to Dovercourt Road.
   

So on the basis of that assessment we have just three elements out of 17 that are of potentially significant benefit to cyclists (depending on design details) - the proposed link under Temple Way (to be funded by now bankrupt Castlemore Securities?), a short link from Muller Road to Dovercourt Road and the existing path through Ashley Vale. That's it. That's supposed to deliver a doubling of the number of cyclists. Welcome to Cycling City Fantasy World.


Hartcliffe Way - new infrastructure?

Cycling at Christmas - that's a £30 fine

As I write Mark Bradshaw, Bristol City Council's executive member for transport, is speaking on Radio Bristol and seems intent on making himself loathed by another section of Bristol's traveling public by fronting a joint Council and Police purge against cyclists who are trying to cope with Bristol's notoriously cycle-hostile streets by sometimes cycling on pavements. The hapless Bradshaw, who is not even a cyclist, presumes to tell us how we should conduct ourselves when he has little understanding of the issues.



For at least 30 years cyclists' groups have been pleading with Bristol City Council (and its precursor Avon) to make the road infrastructure safe and convenient for cyclists and pedestrians. We have even promoted, on our own initiative and at our own expense, a wide variety of ideas to address this including traffic calming, 20 mph speed limits, contra-flow cycle lanes and home zones, yet little of this has been implemented and the highway network remains overwhelmingly dedicated to giving priority to speeding motor traffic.

The manifest failure of the Council to heed the warnings has resulted in them being ill-prepared to accommodate the growing popularity of cycling. Their fumbling and bungling approach to Cycling City illustrates this very well. Is not the fundamental purpose of Cycling City to 'encourage' cycling? So what is one of the Council's first Cycling City initiatives - the persecution of cyclists to appease a minority of reactionary Evening Post readers!

Cyclists, being a smallish minority group, have always been perceived as convenient scapegoats to blame for society's traffic ills, as I can attest from direct experience sitting on a road safety committee 25 years ago (when cyclists did by and large obey traffic regulations but were nevertheless always cited as the greatest threat to road safety). So we now see that Bristol City Council's approach to Cycling City includes the encouragement and legitimisation of the scapegoating of cyclists!



Famous Jewish joke. A Nazi asked a Jew who is to blame for society's ills. The Jew says "the Jews and the cyclists". The Nazi says "Why the cyclists?". The Jew says "why the Jews?".

New Cycling City joke. Bradshaw asks a cyclist who is to blame for the traffic problems. The cyclist says "the cyclists and the Somalis." Bradshaw says "why the Somalis?".

We shall fight on the parking places....

I'm not a great fan of council meetings, least of all the more obscure meetings like the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission, but last night's 'extraordinary' meeting proved quite dramatic. The main agenda item was the report on last summer's consultations on the proposed Residents’ Parking Schemes and so the chamber was packed with angry, placard waving objectors apparently organised by Bernie Cooke's keep parking free campaign.

Commission chairman Lib-Dem Alex Woodman found himself fronting for the council when the proposals are in reality being pushed through by the Labour Cabinet, a finer point of democratic accountability evidently lost on many of the baying mob. Alex did his best under the very difficult circumstances, but his youth and inexperience told against him. Whenever he tried to assert his authority as Chair he was teased mercilessly by the crowd - “ooooooooooh”. The man who will have to confront the mob at Thursday's Cabinet meeting, Mark Bradshaw, sat at the back, grinning Cheshire cat like.

A few pro-RPS residents braved the sea of NO placards and spoke forcefully in support of the scheme but the general mood was antagonistic. A few spoke coherently against the Scheme, notably councillor Peter Abrahams, whose eloquence had Churchillian overtones. His political savvy and rhetorical skills showed through as he positioned himself to be the motorists champion.

The essence of the debate is interesting. On the one hand there are some areas on the fringe of the existing central Bristol CPZ, notably Kingsdown (above) and south-east Clifton (below) where a clear majority of residents (as disclosed here ten days ago) want an RPS, even if they have to pay the cost of running it themselves, such is their desperation. So why shouldn't they have what they manifestly want? Is that not the democratic way?

On the other hand it is argued that if those areas are allowed to have RPS then the parking problem will be displaced to the adjacent areas, who will in turn require an RPS to resolve it, displacing the problem again until ultimately the whole of the inner city has to be covered. And the overall view of the inner city, as evidenced by the consultation, is that the overwhelming majority don't want RPS. Those who support this argument are saying in effect that areas like Kingsdown and Clifton must continue to suffer so that the rest do not inherit the parking problem.

It's a bit like saying that your neighbours shouldn't be allowed to have cars so that you can continue to have one yourself without suffering the consequences of your actions (and that is often said, isn't it, when the neighbours are students). In other words sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy. Fortunately the Lib-Dems are supporting the rights of those areas that want RPS so it should get through the political process intact. Nevertheless it will be a bumpy ride over the next weeks as the RPS proposals go to Cabinet on Thursday and then Full Council.