Robbing Peter to pay Paul

The latest twist in the Prince Street Bridge saga leaves some questions unanswered. In the first place why did Bristol City Council's Press Release claim that the bridge had only one footway when it plainly has two? A simple mistake? Yes, a mistake to put that in the Press Release but there must be something behind it, such as a plan showing only one footway, a plan of what the council intend perhaps.

So why would the council want to remove the east side footway? To widen the carriageway to allow wider vehicles, like buses, through? It certainly fits with their intention to create a BRT route from Ashton Vale to Emerson's Green via Prince Street Bridge and Temple Meads. Adapting the existing bridge would be vastly cheaper and quicker than having to build a new bridge and we know how anxious Bristol are to force BRT through quickly in the face of growing public scepticism.

Given that the west side footway is already unable to accommodate the number of pedestrians crossing, removal of the east side footway would only be possible if the west side footway were substantially widened, which can only be done at the expense of the roadway on that side, effectively closing it to motor traffic.



So there we have the rational for the changes. BRT is the driver, the overriding demand which is providing the impetus for the council to finally confront the Evening Post fronted car lobby. Previous attempts to restrict car access to Prince Street Bridge on behalf of cyclists and pedestrians haven't got anywhere, despite quite widespread support, so something has clearly changed.

On Friday the Evening Post responded to the proposal in its characteristic pro-car, anti-cyclist manner with the front page headline "FARCICAL" below a picture of the hapless Mark Bradshaw standing in front off the bridge. An editorial chimed in with outrage that half the bridge should be given over to "the minority of people who cycle into the city" calling the partial closure to cars "spiteful, short-sighted and wholly without merit". Strong language indeed.

But then on Saturday the tone changes dramatically with a piece acknowledging that opinion is divided and quoting some supporters of the proposed partial closure. It seems that little opposition is likely to materialise, even from Richard Eddy's Conservatives. So has someone had a whisper in Post editor Mike Norton's shell like, perhaps explaining that this is really paving the way for the all-important BRT, which Norton supported so strongly when launched early this year?



And what about cyclists, who are supposed to be the principal beneficiaries of the scheme. Apart from taking all the flack for this "spiteful" scheme, what's in it for us? We will effectively lose the right to use the east side roadway and will find ourselves competing for space with pedestrians within the 3.5 metre width of the west side of the bridge, which at peak times could provoke a lot of conflict. Is that a benefit? I'm not at all sure, but for sure we will be paying for it all to the tune of £40,000 out of Cycling City funds.

Maintaining the status quo at Prince Street Bridge just isn't an option anymore, so the real question is not whether but how it changes. Compared to the alternative of complete closure to motor traffic and the allocation of one half to pedestrians and the other to half to cyclists, what is now planned is bad news for cyclists and pedestrians and good news for motorists, who will at least retain use of the bridge. Perhaps that was the message that finally got through to Mike Norton.

(See below for lead post and also Bristol Traffic , Southville Roads and Bristol Blogger.)

Cycling City Secret Sell-Off?

It seems that Bristol City Council have let the excitement of being declared the UK's first Cycling City rather go to their heads. Barely months after massive public opposition forced them to backtrack on plans to convert the Bristol & Bath Railway Path to a high speed bus route, they now appear to be selling off strips of that same precious green corridor to property developers for speculative housing developments.



The case that has emerged concerns the Chocolate Factory development at Greenbank. As reported here way back in May a property developer, Squarepeg, plan to build terraced housing along what we first assumed to be the boundary of the Railway Path, but closer inspection of the plans suggested that the planned housing might intrude onto the Railway Path land. We now discover that the City Council are going ahead with the sale of a substantial strip of the former railway land to Squarepeg to accommodate this housing.

Such hubris on the part of the City Council is not so surprising. If the reward for planning to virtually destroy the nation's preeminent cycle path was to be awarded over £11 million of Cycling City funding, what should they fear from a clandestine sell-off of the green margins? Of course the usual suspects are in on the deal - Bradshaw*, Sustrans, George Ferguson and other latterday luminaries who now promote themselves as patrons of green transport.



But what of the thousands of ordinary Path users who campaigned so heroically to save the Path from the Council's misguided transport plans this spring? Have they been consulted? Did they even know anything of the planned sell-off? It seems not, at least not until after the event, when a small print announcement appeared in Squarepeg's newsletter tucked away under the attention grabbing heading "coherent approach creates combined application" (zzzzz) reporting that "negotiations to purchase ... have been successful and the application now includes.....a strip of land that runs along the cycle path".

There are mixed views on this high profile development, as might be expected, and many people are expressing concern at the loss of the green corridor which is as vital a component of the Railway Path as the tarmac path. For all we know, it may even be that the tarmac path itself may be moved over from its existing alignment to maximise the land available for the housing, so the green margins may be degraded on both sides.



There are also concerns about conflict between Path users and residents of the houses, particularly small children and pets, who might emerge suddenly from the concealment of the access ramps into the path of a cyclist. The last thing Path users want is to be put into a position where they are endangering others, especially children. Yet it's clear enough (except apparently to Sustrans) from the sketches supplied that that is exactly what will happen.

But fear not, the City Council always know best and will in due course give their approval to the Planning Application, expected to be submitted next week. They have, according to Squarepeg, already preempted the decision by selling off the land.

(*Later edit - it seems that Bradshaw might not have been involved after all, nor any other elected Councillor! See later posts for details.)

For the follow-up post click here.