S. Gloucs Road planners: We want a shrubbery. Yours.

Rather than slag off the council cycle team, let's look a bigger problem: the council road planning team. These are people whose daily commute probably takes in the A38/M5/M4 exchange, the M32/M4 exchange and the A4174 ring road. While everyone else is stuck in their cars thinking "this is shite", the road planners are thinking "we love complex interchanges. If we added seventeen more flyovers we could get another 1500 cars/hour through here"

These are the real enemy. The cycle team can only fuck up cycle lanes and the bits by the roads. It is the road planners that put in the dual carriageways and the roundabouts off them -then get surprised that this creates more congestion.

Whoever these people are, they are lost in 1970s road planning, ignorant of demand creation. They think widening the ring road will solve problems -it won't. What would solve problems would be making it safe and easy for people to cycle to work, to school and home. Dirt cheap and easy.

But the ring-road planners don't want that. They want to do motorways! Flyovers! Bridges! They are civil engineers building things without any grounding in what actually benefits the area.

This week -an expansion of the A4174/BAe roundabout. Where will the space for this come from? The elm-green park area alongside the Filton Pool and community centre. This has a BMX track, a cycle speedway (there's a waste of cycle sport money), and one of the few green spaces in the area.

The road planners want this. They don't have the money for it, so they've asked Filton Council to give them to it -for free!

An evening post article covers the story..

In a letter to the council, Mark Shearman, principal engineer for transport services, says they want 317 square metres of extra land to widen the Filton A4174 ring road, as part of the Southmead 106 funding project, which it asks Filton council to donate free of charge. The move would see the amount of land taken from Elm Park playing fields, reducing the size removing trees, pathway and shrubbery in the process.


Extra space for more ring road over parkland. Nice to see the priorities. They say this will reduce congestion, but that shows how little they know of "induced demand" -more lanes for cars means more cars.

What about the people who cycle? Fuck off, is what the road planners say, discreetly:

In addition to the road changes the council say they want to improve facilities for cyclists with pathways but they have a limited budget and are under a timescale pressure

See that? "want to" but "limited budget" and "timescale pressure". That means no. It means "we don't give a fuck about bicycles and can't be arsed to do anything about it". It means "All that stuff about putting walking, cycling and public transport first? That's bollocks that we don't believe". Induced Demand? Unproven theory. Global Warming? A communist conspiracy. Peak Oil. Fictional. As for cycling? Why do that when there is a car park by our office for our BMWs?

This is the root cause of the shitness in the area for cycling. A bunch of road planners who dream of a Filton of Flyovers, who ignore the larger consequences of their decisions. Maybe they do know of Induced Demand -and like it, because it keeps them busy building flyovers and roundabouts.

Another quote
"Councillor Bill Moore said he had spoken to the planning department suggesting a cycle path could cut through Elm Park field and was told this hadn't been considered as an option"

Is that surprising? The traffic department views cyclists as a bunch of whiners who turn up to a meeting that they don't attend themselves.

If there is one good thing, the outcome of the meeting was

Filton council concluded that the request from South Gloucs council was ill thought out and they voted all but one to reject the request completely

That may give them the time to actually design in that bike lane, a proper one. They could even use the money saved from the widening to build it. But you can pretty fucking confident they won't as the road planners don't believe in bicycles.

And where is our cycling representative, Bwian Allinson in all this? Keeping his head down, by the look of things.

S. Gloucs Road planners: We want your shrubbery

S Gloucs: Cities Shit for Cycling

Citizens! The new Times "Cities Fit for Cycling" campaign targets councils like that of S Gloucs.

Unfortunately our council could not support any of the objectives of the campaign, especially that bit about providing useful infrastructure. As far as the council is concerned y\the only role of cycling infrastructure is to keep people on cycles out the way of cars -and if there is a conflict, the bicycles lose. 

For that reason, we, the People's Cycling Front of S Gloucestershire have some artwork to donate to the council, their own logo that they can stick on the vans that block bike paths.

Some people might think "will not the council be embarrassed by this?"

S Gloucs council doesn't give a fuck about bicycles. We know that because we have seen photographs of the new Great Wall of Filton! Until one of our campaign units has visited the site we can not confirm that it is real, but if it is, it actually makes the path with a 50cm dropout look good. At least that one could be ridden on a mountain bike. 

Until that coverage, enjoy our new logo. Before any outsiders complain that the word "shit" doesn't join up with the rest of the sentence, compare it to S Gloucs cycling farcilities before slagging of our graphics.

A Statement about Shellmor Avenue

The People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire have issued a statement at 10:00, 10, November, 2010. Or, in S Gloucs council time, the little hand is near the big hand on November 10, 1974.

Here is the statement in full:

WE ARE AWARE THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF MANY OF THE LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN S GLOUCS ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE THE COUNCIL IN DISCUSSION OF THE SHELLMOR AVENUE PROPOSALS, HENCEFORTH KNOWN AS "THE SHELLMOR AVENUE FUCKUP"

THE ISSUE THESE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE IS THAT OF THE FOUR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES PROPOSED ONLY ONE HAS TAKEN CYCLING INTO ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS POINT TO THE TRAFFIC CALMED ROAD. THE COUNCIL WOULD RATHER CYCLISTS RISKED THEIR LIVES ON THE A38 THAN USING QUIETER ROADS.

WE HAVE A MESSAGE TO THESE REPRESENTATIVES -WHO ARE CLEARLY SPLITTERS AND PROBABLY MEMBERS OF THE POPULAR CYCLING FRONT OF SOUTH GLOUCESTER:

"WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT? THE FACT THAT THE PLANNERS INCLUDED ONE CYCLE FEATURE IN THEIR PLANS FOR THE JUNCTION IS EITHER A MIRACLE OR AN ACCIDENT. THE PLANNING TEAM MUST HAVE GOT OUT THEIR "1973 INTERCHANGES IN LEEDS AND GLASGOW" VISIO TEMPLATE OUT AND PUT TOGETHER FOUR PROPOSALS FOR A JUNCTION, WHILE STARING AT THEIR PROUD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE M4/M5 JUNCTION."

"YOUR ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE THE COUNCIL IN DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC IS WASTE OF YOUR TIME. BY NOW CLLR BWIAN ALLINSON WILL HAVE ADDED ALL YOUR NAMES TO HIS JUNK MAIL FOLDER, AS WILL THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT."

"THE COUNCIL OFFICERS MAY HAVE SAID THAT YOUR NEEDS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT LATER -BUT THIS SHOWS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. YOU WILL BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE AND LEFT WITH SOMETHING WORTHLESS. EVEN THEN, THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE CHOSEN ANY OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT LACK CYCLE LANES WILL THEN BE UPSET THAT CYCLE ACCESS HAS BEEN ADDED."

"YOUR ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNCIL LEGITIMISES THEIR PLANS, AS NOW THEY CAN SAY THEY HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE LOCAL CYCLING GROUPS AND LOCAL EMPLOYERS"

"THE CYCLING CHAMPION IN THE COUNCIL, THE CYCLING OFFICERS IN THE COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL TRAFFIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARE NOT YOUR ALLIES -THEY ARE YOUR ENEMIES"

"RECOGNISE THIS, JOIN OUR ORGANISATION, AND TOGETHER THE COUNCIL WILL COME TO FEAR THE KEVLAR BACKED BLACK CYCLING GLOVES OF THE PEOPLE'S CYCLING FRONT OF SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE"

Introducing Councillor Bwian Allinson, South Gloucestershire’s "Cycling Champion"

In examining the work of South Gloucestershire Council and its attitude towards cyclists we’ve so far been focusing on Council Officers and their apparent ignorance, incompetence and/or indifference.

But we’re being unfair. It’s not just Council Officers who are ignorant, incompetent and/or indifferent – it’s the elected Councillors who are supposed to wield the power and have the influence it’s them that are supposed to set strategy, give direction and make decisions.

Even if the Council Officers did have a clue what they were doing, their efforts would be of no use if they didn’t have the support of elected Councillors. And they don't because the councillor is meant to care about cycling doesn't give a fuck.

When South Gloucestershire Council became part of Britain’s first Cycling City it was noted that they hadn’t appointed a ‘Cycling Champion’. Cycle Forum members (we’ll be explaining all about the “Cycle Forum” in a future blog) suggested, very strongly, that the fact there wasn’t one demonstrated that the Council wasn’t showing commitment and support.

So what exactly is a Cycling Champion? A Champion Cyclist? Not quite.

The role of the Cycling Champion is nicely explained by the Cycling Champion in one of our neighbouring local authorities: Bath and North East Somerset.

His name is Councillor Roger Symonds

He says:

"The key objective of an elected member nominated to act as a Cycling Champion will be to support and encourage the Council in its work to ensure that the promotion and encouragement of cycling as a means of transport as well as for leisure plays a central role in the development and implementation of all its policies and strategies. This will involve engagement with stakeholders and other partners both within your council and externally."

You might think it would help if that person rides a bike. In Roger’s case he does, and he recognises the problems we face.

Our immediate neighbours in Bristol have a Cycling Champion too, theirs is Dr Jon Rogers, a GP, he also rides a bike, keeps the council on track and even supports measures like community-installed bike parking:

Here in South Gloucestershire our Cycling Champion is Councillor Brian Allinson. He looks a bit rounder than the other two, as if he doesn't get enough exercise. If a member of the Cyclig Front were a doctor -like Jon Rogers, they'd be suggesting a blood pressure and cholesterol test before asking if there was a history of heart disease in the family.

You’d assume that like Roger Symonds and Jon Rogers, Brian Allinson is a Councillor who happens to ride a bike and has volunteered to ‘champion’ cycling. Unfortunately, although perhaps unsurprisingly you’d be wrong. Very wrong.

Councillor Allinson doesn’t ride a bike. Cycling campaigners asked him if he owns one and he didn’t reply so we’ll assume that’s a "no" then. In fact we’ve even been left wondering if he’s ever ridden a bike.

Sure, Councillor Allinson used to turn up at events to promote the Cycling City projec.. in his car (which happens to be a large executive four wheel drive). Sure he seems supportive and says the right things in press releases, but are they his words? Or are they just written by someone from the press office who’s wants us to believe that he cares about cyclists?

Does Councillor Allison really even get cycling? How can he possibly be "a cycling champion" if he doesn’t ride a bike? In any event is he the kind of person you’d expect to be ‘championing cycling’? He doesn't believe a word of anything he says as these press events or he wouldn't look like someone about to have a heart attack in his 4x4 as gets so irate about being stuck in traffic.

Perhaps he used to ride a bike? No.

Councillor Allinson used to be a policeman. A very senior one. Perhaps he was responsible for encouraging more officers to ride bikes? No. Apparently his big thing was the police helicopter. After he retired from the police he became a consultant advising on police helicopters and later he became Conservative Councillor for Stoke Gifford.

So why was he chosen as the Council’s Cycling Champion we wonder?

Let’s have a look back at what he’s said in the past about cycling…

(pause)

Oh…. we’re afraid that despite searching through the press releases and council minutes we can find no record whatsoever of Councillor Allison ever having spoken out for cyclists before he was appointed ‘Cycling Champion’. In fact he’s never even mentioned cycling.

In 2007 he was reported noting that it often takes an hour to drive 2 to 3 miles in his Stoke Gifford ward in the rush hour, half-an-hour to drive one mile! (A journey that would take 5 minutes on a bike).

His answer? Reduce congestion by encouraging more people to cycle, build more cycle paths, improve the infrastructure, removal obstacles?

You must be joking! Councillor Allison’s wanted to build another road across a railway line and at huge expense!

"We've been asking for a long time for the Stoke Gifford bypass - but it really needs now to be called the Stoke Gifford relief road. "The real problem is all the traffic from Bradley Stoke, Almondsbury and Thornbury wanting to go south, has to go through the Parkway railway bridge and it's a real pinch point. So we have to have a second crossing of that railway line which will free up the whole of Stoke Gifford."

Oh dear. The real problem, Bwian, is the failure of your council to provide any alternative transport options. As it is, that "choke point" is the only bit of traffic calming in the area.

And it get’s worse - Councillor Allison spoke out more recently against Highway’s Agency plans to signalise the slip road onto the M32 at Junction 1 – Hambrook.



Anyway, back to Councillor Allison and his view on the Highway’s Agency’s plans. Did he speak out for cyclists? Did he ask officers to look at what could be done to improve the junction for all users (not just drivers). Did he even consider other road users?

No, of course not. His main concern, in fact his only concern, was that the Highways Agency plans would cause “road chaos”. He said "I am concerned that, despite the best intentions of the Highways Agency, these plans will worsen congestion at the M32/ring road roundabout" he said, proposing adding an extra lane for traffic to queue up to get onto the motorway.

Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he became Cycling Champion so that he could liaise with and listen to cyclists, take their views into account?

As we mentioned above, South Glos Council hold periodic ‘Cycle Forum’ meetings and they’d provide an ideal opportunity for Councillor Allinson to meet cyclists and hear their ideas and concerns.

Apparently he went to one meeting and, yes, you guessed it, he didn’t like what he heard and has not been back since.

This has been pointed out on numerous occasions. He always sends his apologies. One meeting in September 2009 was re-arranged especially so that he could be there. He still didn’t bother to turn up.

As we said, yes Councillor Allinson does turns up at events to promote Cycling City (and get his picture taken) but what’s his motivation, does he believe the words he’s quoted as saying?

Speaking at the opening of the new cycle route between Bradley Stoke and Parkway Councillor Allinson was quoted as saying: "For those who want to start the New Year with a healthier lifestyle this route offers a great opportunity to combine a cycle ride with a trip to the gym or for a swim. For longer cycle rides the new route also offers good links to cycle paths in the Three Brooks Nature Reserve and the local area.".

Notice how in the same article Jon Rogers from Bristol says "this newest Bradley Stoke route will encourage healthy, friendly, sustainable commuting as well." It's like Jon recognised that Bwian is clueless about the needs of the cycling community and stepped in for a bit of damage limitation.

Talking about the opening of another route to the shopping mecca that is Crappy Cribbs Causeway he said "This route will make it easier for cyclists to travel to Cribbs Causeway, which is timely for that last bit of Christmas shopping."

OK we might be being picky but note he doesn’t refer to himself, he always refers to cyclists, gym users.. as if they (we) are another class of citizen. That  is, an out group, not his electorate, not the people who work in the industries of the area that bring in revenue to the city.

One of the key aims of Cycling City was to encourage non-cyclists to take up cycling. To encourage people to consider using other forms of transport other than their car.

Get those people to benefit and we all benefit. Improve their fitness and therefore health: reduce the burden on the Health Service. Get them out of their cars, reduce congestion: we and the environment all benefit -and save money on road widening.

If the words Councillor Allinson is quoted above as saying are really some PR gimlet's list of quotes for him to mouth as he tries to get his over-round face in the paper. What does he really think? Each Councillor is required to submit an annual report. The report sets out a brief description of the Councillor's main activities, what Committees they sit on, membership of Outside Bodies and achievements and successes during the year.

Councillor Allison’s report mentions traffic congestion as the number one concern raised by his ward members. He writes at length about his responsibilities and achievements over the year. Cycling does not get one mention. Not one. Well, OK, a half, a tinsey bit, near the very end of his report he mentions he officially opened a BMX track in Little Stoke Park “which has been so well supported by all the youth of Stoke Gifford” – see,again, he thinks bikes are for other people, kids (until they are old enough to get a proper form of transport).

Brian Allison doesn’t think bikes are a form of transport.

He thinks bikes are for fitness freaks

He thinks bikes are for kids, provided they dress up like bollards to cycle round a school playground

Councillor Bwian Allinson. South Glos Cycling Champion. Says it all really.

Better by bike?

The city's better by bike site has a video from the Bollards of Death route to the B&Q bridge.

We see they chose a sunny off peak period. This is it at its best. Try doing it at 17:15 after the MoD knock off, in winter conditions. the MoD lighting is for their IR cameras, the rubgy grounds completely unlit with large potholes that fill up with water. Add some pedestrians trying to get home in darkness and a couple of teenagers on trials bikes.



A quick post mortem of the video

1:14 Swerve into "the forbidden side" to pass pedestrians. This shows a fundamental problem here that bollards don't fix. People walk side by side, the bike paths are two way, the path isn't wide enough to segregate either traffic option. All the bollards do is increase the likelihood of collision, as segregation isn't possible.

2:06. This is three way junction with restricted visibility -something the video doesn't warn you about. Anyone coming from the route that joins on the left has to be in the pedestrian side to avoid colliding with people coming from the direction shown in the video.

2:21. Note the large water filled potholes. Then consider what the path is like in darkness.

2:48. Note how conflict is reduced at this point because the road is wide enough. But on winter nights when the rubgy match lights aren't on, pedestrians are invisible -nobody likes it.

3:57 (now in Bristol) observe the large oncoming bus. With vehicles half parked on the pavement on both sides of the road, oncoming traffic will swerve into your lane, and as few people give way to bicycles, the advice to keep your speed down would be correct -though of course having the cars do the same would be better. That is, after all, why people park on the pavement -to protect their own vehicle's bodywork.

Those vans on the left are a fixture by the way. We are promised some signs -let's see if that makes any difference in behaviour. Making one side of the road no parking, and making pavement parking illegal, might, because then everyone would park on the same side of the road -and less swerving.

4:27 You need some acceleration to cross here, cars are in a hurry to get in or out of Lockleaze.

4:59 locals tend to drive to these shops (no bike parking), look out for double parked vehicles, cars stopping, pulling out and U-turning without warning.

The shopping stretch is interesting. It is hazardous, because so many people drive there. Why? No reason not to other than fuel costs. There's little congestion, no parking problems (just double park), and you know there'll be somewhere to park when you get home. Unlike the inner city, the local shops are further away but easy to drive to. Downtown, the combination of congestion, one-way streets, road closures and traffic lights means you are best off walking round the corner. Here driving still works. It may cost, but as that weekly cost is decoupled from the drive to the shops, it's not immediately obvious.