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.

A Pack of Lies

You know how it is when you read a newspaper report about something that you happen to know about and you're aghast at how many facts are just plain wrong, not to mention the malicious spin put on it to serve editorial purposes. So it is with Bristol City Council press releases.

The press release which contained the revelation about Prince Street Bridge having just one footway is in fact a masterpiece of deception with no less than ten misleading or untrue statements within its 16 paragraphs. Here's a breakdown.

Para 1. "the city council and its partners prepare ... to turn the south west's biggest city into one of the best places in Europe to be on a bike."

Wrong. It's ludicrous to claim that Bristol could become one of Europe's best places to cycle. It's never going to be in the same league as cities like Copenhagen (dk), Malmo (se), Amsterdam (nl), Ferrara (it), Basel (ch) and Muenster (de).

Para 2. “Plans …. include two new major ‘off-road’ commuter routes”

Wrong. The off-road routes proposed are not "new" but upgrades or extensions of existing routes and not even major ones at that.

Para 4. “Councillor Mark Bradshaw… said: Our city already has a tremendous range of facilities and routes for cycling”

Wrong. With the exception of the Railway Path, facilities and routes for cyclists are widely regarded as poor quality and ill-thought out.

Para 7. “The city council is prepared to take some tough decisions, such as tackling safety concerns on Prince Street Bridge”

Wrong. The tough decision would have been to close the bridge entirely to cars and assign one half to walkers and the other to cyclists. As it is they’ve opted for the easy option of keeping it open to cars and forcing cyclists and walkers to share an inadequate width.

Para 9. “One of the new ‘off-road’ routes proposed …. will link the city centre with Lockleaze …. via a new path between Hopetown (sic) Road in St Werburgh’s and Muller Road, Horfield.”

Wrong. The path from Hopetoun Road to Muller Road already exists and has been used by cyclists for 20 years or more.

Para 10. “The other new ‘off road’ route ….. will enable cyclists to travel into the city centre from south Bristol via Hartcliffe Way and an improved Malago Greenway”

Wrong. Cyclists can already cycle this route and have been doing so for 20 years. Upgrading the route does not make it “new”.

Para 12. “The first phase of Cycling City work also proposes to deliver an improved route for cyclists and pedestrians alike across the city’s Prince Street bridge.”

Wrong. There is no evidence that the route will be improved for cyclists who will find themselves forced onto half the width they currently enjoy and probably into conflict with pedestrians.

Para 12. “This narrow swing bridge over the historic Floating Harbour has a slim pavement on one side only and poses a danger for cyclists…”

Wrong. There are pavements on both sides and there is no evidence of significant danger from this to cyclists.

Para 12. “The Cycling City proposal will see the introduction of more space for cyclists …”

Wrong. Cyclists will have less space than they enjoy at present and it isn't even clear how pedestrians will benefit.

Para 13. “Initial improvements … will include new direction and information signs for the popular Bristol to Bath ‘Railway’ Path through eastern and central Bristol”

Wrong. The Railway Path does not go “through” central Bristol, just east Bristol.

As if all that wasn't enough the author of the press release, Simon Carplan, made a comment on the Bristol Blogger site yesterday complaining that his colleague Kate Hartas had been criticised for writing the misleading press release when in fact he had written it (but not put his name to it).

Carplan went on to claim that "the decision to focus on the proposals for Prince Street Bridge in this piece of publicity .... was deliberate and designed to ensure that the council were open and honest with the public about the scheme". But the news about Prince Street Bridge is hardly the focus of the press release, that being Cycling City.

It would be closer to the truth to say that the Prince Street Bridge news was ‘buried away’ inside the Cycling City news. It doesn’t get a mention until the 7th para and isn’t dealt with until 12th para. That doesn’t sound like a “focus on the bridge” to me, given that they knew very well that it was easily the most contentious element.

And it really is stooping low to try to ‘blame’ the Prince Street Bridge restrictions on cyclists so we get the flak in the Evil Post. Cyclists, rightly or wrongly, get a lot of resentment from motorists and pedestrians. Fanning the flames by saying the traffic restrictions are required to benefit cyclists is hardly consistent with the stated aims of Cycling City.