Work starts on latest Cycling City route

The bike lift idea is not 'outlandish' at all. Examples already exist in Belgrade and Brussels. It would cost much less than what is being spent on the Hartcliffe Way cycle track yet attract much greater levels of use.

I have no control over the Evening Post and can do little about the headlines they use or the comments their cycling articles attract. You will see in today's Post that even the story of Jon Rogers' cycling fall attracted the usual mudslinging, as has almost every bit of publicity generated by Cycling City itself. Those anti-cycling attitudes cannot be ignored and have to be confronted.

Where intellectual rigour is required is in developing a cycling policy and strategy for Bristol. Part of that would be the recognition that all our highways are cycle routes, including Hartcliffe Way. That recognition would lead to a different approach to identifying and resolving problems.

So instead of thinking that Hartcliffe Way needs a 'cycle route' along it we would instead seek to understand why the existing cycle route isn't performing. This in turn might lead us to recognise that the problems that cyclists experience on Hartcliffe Way are little different to those experienced on most of our arterial roads. So we need a strategy that works for all those roads and not just the odd kilometre here and there.

As it is we will end of with this fragment of cycle track along Hartcliffe Way which will not attract much more use than the fragment of cycle track on the other side of Hartcliffe Way because the same fundamental problems apply – the lack of cycling culture in the area, the lack of a quality link on towards the city centre and the 'cycling is second class' signal that it sends out every time the track gives way to side roads.

Frattie, your descent into personal insults simply serves to illustrate what is fundamentally wrong with Cycling City - its lack of intellectual rigour.

The Cycling City approach seemes to be to throw money at anything with the word 'cycle' attached and to castigate anyone who dares question that.

The Hartcliffe Way scheme ably demonstrates the failings of this approach. It duplicates an existing cycle track along the other side of the road which could have been upgraded where necessary for a fraction of the cost. It serves an area where there is very little evidence of demand for cycling. It fails to link through towards the city centre other than by a poor quality route.

At over £500,000 a kilometre it is disproportionately expensive yet it fails to achieve the standards of continuity that are necessary to signal an enhanced status for cycling. Its chief merit is that it provides a quick and convenient way of spending a large sum of taxpayers' money as dictated by Cycling England.

But please don't feel obliged to respond to any of the points raised above. Just dig out the thesaurus and rattle off some more personal insults, as befits an unthinking supporter of Cycling City.

Frattie, where do I "purport to be 'Bristol's Cycling Representatives'"? If you read what I actually said I was referring to the Bristol Cycle Campaign and the CTC, who do have some claim to be representatives, in as far as anyone does.

Interestingly you seem to have no qualms about claiming to speak for other cyclists yourself when you say "we see all of this objecting as an attempt to undermine a good programme". Speak for yourself by all means but not for cyclists in general.

If you knew something about the CTC and Bristol Cycling Campaign you would know that they have no desire to undermine a good programme, or even Cycling City. Their action in objecting is driven by sheer frustration with the unresponsiveness of Cycling City to the concerns they have repeatedly raised about the inadequate standards being adopted.

Admin. Thanks for supplying the cost figure. That's over half a million per kilometre then. At that rate the allocation of new Cycling City money for infrastructure (68% of £11.4 million) will buy just 15 kms of cycle track for the whole Greater Bristol area.

Jon, your honestly and openness is commendable. Are you sure you're cut out for politics?

Given your huge range of responsibilities in Bristol no one in their right mind would expect you to take personal control of every situation. In this case it seems that concerns expressed by cycling representatives were not given the focus they deserved. It happens all the time. It's inherent in the system yet changing the system is very difficult, as I'm sure you know only too well.

I note your invitation to the infrastructure meeting tomorrow. I doubt whether I can attend due to work commitments but in any case my experience over many years is that such meetings achieve very little. In my view there are fundamental problems with the incumbent officer culture (of which our debate over the meaning of 'new' is an example) and merely discussing design standards isn't going to address that.

Hi Jon,

We've had this debate before. I make a distinction between the route, namely the highway called Hartcliffe Way, which was created around 1960 and the cycle track now being built along the west side which will of course be new. Hartcliffe Way has always been a cycling route. Apart from the carriageway itself cyclists have also been allowed to use the east side footway for about the last 20 years. So you cannot claim that this is a 'new cycling route'.

It matters because there is a profound difference between a new route which offers the opportunity for quicker and more direct journeys and an improvement to an existing route which may offer only marginal benefits. In this case the west side cycle track may not be very different in performance terms to the east side cycle track, given the low levels of use. Both give way to side roads at junctions which is one of the aspects of cycle track design that the Bristol Cycling Campaign and the CTC object strongly to.

I will check whether the Cycling Campaign actually lodged an objection as well as the CTC. The matter was discussed and it was agreed to object on the grounds of the poor design standards being adopted. The point is that the concerns expressed by those who have decades of experience of these things appear to have been dismissed by the planners.

chris

Thanks Chris

(1) Semantics - there is no cycle route currently on the West side of Hartcliffe Way. There will be a new 4m wide segregated path opening on February 26th 2010. I suppose you could say that it is replacing the current, narrow path on the East side of the road, but my understanding is that will remain, so this one will be new.

(2) According to the planning report, there was only one objection recorded from "CTC Right to Ride Network". Please can you let me have a copy of the other?

The officer "delegated report" seems rather sparse in response to the concerns raised. It simply says, "none of the points raised changed their position". I will ask for a copy of the detailed response to the points raised, as they all seem legitimate. Was there an official response given to the "CTC Right to Ride Network"?

(3) I don't understand why the costs cannot be shared publicly. I'll ask.

Jon