Cycling City - New for Old

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 - Slippery Customers

Bristol City Council's Press Release announcing the opening of the "new" path from St Werburgh's to Muller Road said that it "features a sensitive, solar powered ‘cats eye’ lighting scheme". Jon Rogers is quoted as saying "Path width and lighting were seen as sensitive issues for some residents. So we looked at a way of making the path safe and useable (sic) but without the glaring nuisance lighting." So here they are, the TraxEyes -



As you can see they're really quite small and discreet, 70mm in diameter and proud of the path surface by about 7 mm. So do they work? I checked a little after 10 pm last night when I took these pics so can confidently answer "no". The very most these studs will ever do is emphasise where the edges of the path are, mainly for the benefit of those using the path without lights on very dark nights. Anyone with half-decent lights would benefit far more from reflective material. The amount of light given off by the studs is absolutely minuscule and bears no resemblance to the pictures on the website.



Above is the close-up view at 10.22 pm last night, still twilight at this time of year but dark enough for lights to be necessary. The glow from the greenish plastic is barely visible and of absolutely no practical use. What the TraxEyes certainly will not do is help path users to see other path users which is what really matters. They may even give path users a false sense of security and result in more cyclists using the unlit path without adequate lighting, or cycling faster than they otherwise would because it's easier to see the alignment of the path.



The other question one might ask is "are they slippery?". The answer is yes, they are slippery if you attempt to brake or turn sharply while riding over them, especially in the wet. The example pictured above is particularly dangerous, being on a steeply sloping junction where cyclists are likely to be simultaneously turning and braking sharply (when they are suddenly confronted by a path user who they hadn't seen around the blind corner). If the tyre makes contact only with the plastic disc traction is greatly reduced and if combined with braking or turning, let alone both, the result is that you may well find yourself flat on the ground.

Now all of this has been flagged up before and, I understand, communicated to officers. So why have they gone ahead with the installation of these studs on a public path, presumably without first having carried out such simple tests as I did? If this path was a road open to motor traffic there would surely be no question of using these studs without Department of Transport authorisation following exhaustive safety tests. But it's just a path for cyclists and walkers so we get to be experimented on like laboratory rats.

Cycling City - There's none so blind.....

One of the basic considerations in highway design is to have adequate sight lines at bends and junctions to avoid blind corners. Visibility should of course be appropriate for the design speed of the highway. It's so elementary it hardly needs more explanation....unless you happen to work for our Cycling City project it seems.

Here we have the only significant bit of Cycling City infrastructure to have been completed so far, the upgrading of the old path through the St Werburgh's allotments and alongside the mainline railway to Muller Road, now known as the Farm Pub Path. The engineering of the path is generally good but, as ever, the devil is in the detail.



Here's another example at the old Ashley Down station site, the high point of the path before it drops back down to Muller Road. The path from St Werburgh's comes up from the right in the foreground while the path on to Muller Road heads off to the left. The straight-though path passing through the subway also links to Muller Road at the junction with Shaldon Road but is not intended to be part of the main route.

Cyclists using the main through route are supposed to give way to crossing movements on the minor route, which of course they will be reluctant to do. That's why the century-old convention is for minor routes to give way to major ones, but such tried-and-tested conventions, like the need for sight lines, are routinely ignored by our Cycling City route designers who apparently know better.



Here's the particular problem at this junction (above), looking at it from the point of view of someone coming up from Muller Road on the main through route. You arrive at the intersection but cannot readily see if anyone is coming down the hill due to the fencing. Below is the view for someone heading down the steep incline to the subway - again they cannot see if anyone is emerging from the main route, particularly as vegetation obscures the limited visibility through the fencing. All that was required was for the fencing to be set back a metre or so at the corner.



Now you may be thinking this is another example of Chris Hutt making a mountain out of a molehill and exaggerating the significance of minor details. So here are some unsolicited and independent comments by another user which were recently posted on the Bristol Cycling Campaign web site -

"The new speed opportunities of this widened and well-surfaced path have
almost knocked me flying twice in as many days. Watch out coming UP from near the pub where you curve round to the 'T junction'. First time, unawares, I was enjoying the view, when someone hurtled past from the left as I was about to turn right. Today I was watching super-carefully, climbing towards the junction on LHS, when a youngster on BMX, apparently unable to steer leftwards or brake, sped down at me and just squeaked through on my left as I ground to a shaking halt! Hate to be a killjoy, but fear we may need cycling speed bumps or signage?"

You see designing cycle facilities is not something that can be left to the officer who failed to make the grade as a highway engineer. It requires much the same understanding of the dynamics of handling traffic as do normal roads. Speeds of 20 mph are not unusual and closing speeds (two cyclists approaching from opposite directions) could easily exceed 30 mph, enough to result in serious or fatal injuries. Design has to be based on realistic expectations of users' behaviour, as it is for general roads.

I have offered the advice many times in this blog that it is crucial that competent professionals are engaged to oversee Cycling City, but it does not appear to have been taken. We have technically demanding cycle routes being designed by people who seem to think they're designing footpaths. It's only a matter of time before people are seriously injured as a consequence of such design defects and they will be entirely justified in suing the council for all they're worth.

Cycling City - Constructive Suggestion #3

No response from the Council on my previous suggestions of course, but undeterred (or spurred on perhaps?) I shall continue my series of constructive suggestions for new cycling infrastructure with an idea that we explored on our ride last Sunday.

We were heading back towards St Werburghs from UWE, just north of Stoke Park, initially following the long established cycle path (which I recall proposing around 1990) which links UWE and Lockleaze around the perimeter of Hermitage Wood. Faced with the rather bleak prospect of a long descent through Lockleaze and then a climb back up along Muller Road we agreed (I lead, they followed) to test out out a potential off-road link (just to left of hedgerow below) past the Purdown Telecom Tower.


Pic credit to Matt Taylor

The route picked up the historic ridge route, Sir John's Lane, and then to the open space down to Muller Road. The slopes here get pretty steep (as one of our company found to her cost) so careful path alignment is needed to achieve manageable gradients. There's already a proposal for a bridge across the crest of Muller Road to link Fairfield School to proposed playing fields on Purdown so this could provide an excellent public link for cyclists and walkers too.


View Purdown to Montpelier in a larger map

Our route could then continue along Allfoxton Road to Narroways Junction where the redundant railway formation could be used to link across St Werburghs to Montpelier, so creating an almost continuous off-road route from UWE to Montpelier with of course numerous local links, in particular to the top of the intriguing Boiling Wells Lane to link directly down to St Werburghs. The route would link at either end to good cycling routes so enabling say Clifton to UWE or Easton to Bristol Parkway.


The old railway bridge abutments at Narroways - new bridge opportunity?

As before I offer these ideas up for public discussion and even, if you believe in miracles, official action. To be fully appreciated the route needs to be followed on the ground (it is mostly accessible now) to get some idea of the stunning views from the Purdown Ridge. To my mind this route could give Bristol's cyclists something to get excited about, something sorely lacking in the official Cycling City proposals. Comments welcome.