Tag Archives: Protected Space

Huge response to Space for Cycling survey

We have had over 600 responses to our survey on what people think about cycling in Bristol.

Most responses were from those who cycle regularly, 73% cycle more than 3 times a week, and the main motivations were for excecise and pleasure, commuting, and concern for environment

There is strong support for removing motor traffic from shopping areas to create ‘Living Hearts’. and 3 out of 4 saya there’s not enough secure cycle parking. People want police to priortise cycle theft.

in 20mph local areas half support further traffic slowing measures, but others feel these don’t help cycling and cause other problems. Removing though traffic and favouring residents is popular.

In 30mph areas a whopping 85%+ want PROTECTED cycle lanes and separate cyclelanes around roundabouts and major junctions, with over 70% wanting priority to pedestrians and cyclists at junctions.

In general there is strong support for the 6 main asks behind our Space for Cycling campaign. We’re launching the 2016 phase in March ready for the May elections.

Details of what needs doing is clearly set out in these Three guides to Space for Cycling.

Here are some of the things people said:

  • “We need plenty of cycle parking. On a wet autumn day I struggled to find a free stand in Broadmead. There is only designated cycle parking space at the top and the bottom of Park Street.”
  • “I’m all for reduuction in cars and through traffic. I also drive, but I have no need to travel at high speeds unless I’m on a motor way”
  • “I honestly have no idea how to make it safer other than giving cyclist a safer route that avoids it entirely. I’m looking at you Lawrence Hill Roundabout! You scary son of a bitch.”
  • “Separate cycle ways will only work if they are joined up – you have to be able to get on and off in the right places easily, or they just won’t be used.”
  • “A white line on a pavement is not cycle infrastructure. Cannot stand this cop out cheap solution as it is dangerous, hated by cyclists and pedestrians alike. The only group who win are car drivers.”
  • “Bristol is still confusing in the way cycle lanes integrate with the rest of the world… Turning on and off sometimes and disappearing. This is very noticeable when I have taken my children cycling and have tried to enable them in use of cycle lanes for safe cycling but it’s hard to communicate the elaborate thought processes I can do as an adult cyclist around the more confusing streets of Bristol! But I love that it’s always improving and that cyclists have more space and there is more awareness of our needs we just need more to enable people who are too scared of the roads to join us.”
  • “Cycle infrastructure in Bristol is poor quality and disjointed. Most are just footpaths, many are unsafe to ride on and cyclists are always lowest priority at junctions. Signage for cycle paths are unclear and lead to confusion and conflict.”
  • “I am a keen cyclist..but never really fancy cycling in Bristol.. it’s far too congestred and shared space with cars is so dangerous. I really don’t quite understand the reason Bristol got to be a Green capital!”
  • “I do not approve entirely of segregation between cars & bikes. I took some free cycling lessons with my local council and know it’s possible to cycle safely in traffic if you position yourself properly, especially when making turns. More awareness and education for cyclists & drivers rather than giving anyone preferences to fuel animosity would be an ideal solution.”
  • “In the UK/Bristol, I find that both people on bicycles (I don’t call myself a cyclist as it implies lycra, a hi-vis-vest, a helmet and annoying flashy lights) and people in cars have quite a misunderstanding about their responsibility to general road safety. As long as there is not an established road design including separated lanes the roads have to be shared in a sensible way. Education from young age is the key in this. I’d say to take countries like The Netherlands and Denmark as a proper example on bicycle friendly road design. It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel in the UK.”
  • “Lack of continuous cycle lanes is awful. I lived in Holland, and the separated cycle lanes were amazing. I felt incredibly safe and cycled EVERYWHERE to the point where when I moved to Bristol I had to relearn how to walk!”
  • “Where routes popular with cyclists are too narrow to accommodate cycle lanes, I feel we should start removing parking places as a possible solution. We need to stop being so precious about parking spaces.”

Temple Greenways consultation

Outline plans for ‘cycling Greenways’ through the area around Temple Meads and the new Arena were published last month at http://www.bristoltemplequarter.com/greenways (and here Temple Greenways Proposal Plan – Consultation). They are companion proposals to the Temple Gate plans previewed last year. There is an online survey for responses which gives limited options but do take a minute to make some of the points below. You may want to include a link to this page if you support our points.

While both sets of plans show some innovation and welcome improvements, for example on the Q10 Promenade Quietway and a riverside path on pontoons, they also show a failure to tackle the fundamental issues and barriers, such as linking the F6 Bath Road Freeway into the centre, or the 6,000 space cycling hub that is needed at this key transport interchange.

We think that recent plans for cycling are so awful because they continue to throw in piecemeal routes after all major decisions have been made, and then most of them are for shared use with pedestrians.

There is only one section of separated Space for Cycling in these plans, and that’s the existing short Cattle Market Road section. Everything else is shared use with pedestrians which is only suitable when volumes and speeds are low (BCyC Policy – Shared Space Streets and Shared Use Pavements).

These routes will be some of the most heavily used in the city as we move towards the 20% level of cycling that the Bristol Cycle Strategy is aiming for. We can expect walking to comfortably exceed 40% of trips making clearly separated networks for walking and cycling essential.

As a result our overall position on the plans is to Object, with qualificationsBristolCyclingCampaignresponsetoconsultationTempleGreenways

Space for Cycling

Does this measure advance the six themes of 1) Protected space on main roads; 2) Remove through motor traffic; 3) Safe routes to school; 4) Cycle friendly town centres; 5) Cycle routes in green spaces; 6) 20mph speed limits?

Amber – overall neutral

Road Danger Reduction

Does this measure seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat?

Amber – overall neutral

Triple A Quality (All Ages and Abilities)

Will this measure be attractive to all ages and abilities using all kinds of cycles?

Amber – overall neutral

Strategic Cycling Network

How does this measure contribute to the development of Bristol Council’s planned integrated and coherent strategic cycle network?

Red – overall disbenefit


How far does this measure provide for Triple A Space for Cycling in the future?

Amber – overall neutral


Bristol Cycling Campaign also has the following specific comments on this consultation:

  1. We understand that these are shorter term proposals and so miss out many issues that have yet to be decided, for example bridge under railway. This makes it difficult to comment on more strategic issues but shows how attempting to introduce provision for cycling after plans are established inevitably delivers a poorly integrated and thought through result. We understand that the Council have just secured the Royal Mail site and development of that will enhance provision and access to the back of the station and the bridge over the Avon to the new Arena. We are not aware of any integrated strategy for each mode of transport having access to destinations and to transport links.
  2. There must be a real focus on quality in this key area as set out in Making Space for Cycling. There is a distressing underlying expectation that cyclists are on pavements. There is plenty of room for proper cycling provision. The area around Plot 3 in particular appears to requires several sharp bends.
  3. We are concerned that the capacity of the cycle network will not be adequate when the Bristol Cycle Strategy is aiming for a 20% mode share across Bristol, but this will be much greater in this area. In 10 years times we must not be looking back for a failure of vision. There will be much more employment, and more people walking and cycling, Bristol Cycle Strategy sets target of 20% cycling while walking is already close to 40%, so 60% or more of trips will be walking and cycling. Shared use and minimum width provision will not be adequate. Properly separated provision of adequate width and quality for mass walking and cycling must provided.
  4. We are very concerned at the failure to address the main weak link, namely the A4 Temple Gate from Bath Rd Bridge to Temple Circus, across the frontage of TM Station Approach. Provision here is appears to remain a hopelessly inadequate shared pavement, on both footways of Temple Gate where there will be very high useage with many pedestrians, plus bus-stop queues.
  5. The Harbour Walkway (new pontoon walkway / cycleway) proposals will be a good addition to routes in the area. It will be a useful alternative to the main road road past Temple Meads for those coming from the east, or having to cross the Glass Wharf bridges, then to cross back. We are concerned that it will not be wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists to use without causing conflicts. The pontoon will be 4m wide. The current path under Temple Way is far too narrow, and quite dark even in the daytime. It would be good to make sure its as wide as possible while not restricting the waterway. It must not be considered an alternative to suitable provision at Temple Gate.
  6. Looking at the proposals and images for Cattle Market Road, the two-way segregated lane is good, but needs integrating with onward routes around/across the Bath Road bridge. A width of 3.5m will not be adequate and does not include a buffer from motor traffic (which should be at least 0.5m), however provision at either end is for pavement cycling. This is not a continuous cycling network.
  7. Could the crossing from north to south across Cattle Market Rd be made to prioritise cyclists and pedestrians over cars, e.g. with a trigger for approaching cyclists or a zebra crossing? A little further up, how will this connect with the proposed Feeder Road cycle path and the quality of that junction (with Albert St?) – can cyclists get priority across this junction as well? Traffic levels should be low, but it would be good to create a space from the outset which is clearly for walking and cycling and not really cars. The quality of the path from this point further along the river will also be important.
  8. Further consideration must be given for separate provision on The Friary for a continuous Quietway route joining the Railway Path and Wesley Way to the the Brunel Mile and centre.
  9. Access to the pontoon from The Friary involves 3 sharp 90 degree turns. This is indirect and not suitable for all ages and abilities. A direct and smooth route should be provided through Plot 3.

Temple Gate (Temple Meads)

Informal consultation on current plans for Temple Gate were presented at the January 2015 Bristol Bike Forum. Subsequently the leaflet was published at http://www.bristoltemplequarter.com/gate with requests for responses (deadline passed 18 Feb 2015). We’ve attached it here Temple Gate Consultation_Version_January_2015

The proposals for Temple Gate remove the Temple Circus roundabout and one of its spurs to create “a more direct road layout, changes to access, more direct pedestrian and cycle routes, better public transport facilities and space for new buildings and a public square.” As an important gateway to the City Centre, this scheme is long overdue!

While an improvement to walking and cycling these proposals do not reach the high standards mandated in the Bristol Cycle Strategy.


1. No attempt to reduce or mitigate the large volume of motor traffic.

If the high levels of motor traffic are not to be reduced and moved to alternative routes I would have expected to see grade separation, e.g. a tunnel, built for motor traffic.

2. Not enough segregation for people cycling.

Several parts of the plan simply show an intent to legalise pavement cycling. This is completely insufficient and introduces conflict. As with other flaws in the plans this does not meet the standards put forward in the Bristol Cycle Strategy.

Segregation must be provided between all modes of transport, including along the Brunel mile. This must be made physically, e.g. with a kerb, not paint. Any cycle facility must be at least 2m wide per direction of travel (i.e. a two-way track should be 4m wide). This is the Dutch recommended minimum.

There must also be physical separation between the cycle track and motor traffic. This is recommended to be at least 0.5m of physical space.

3. Cycling in bus lanes

This is completely unsuitable for a cycle network suitable for everyone aged 8-80. It shows a prioritisation of bus movement over people cycling. This contradicts council policy and should not be implemented.

4. Dual network cycling provision

A segregated cycling network should be of sufficient quality to suit everyone, All Ages and Abilities (Triple A provision). As the plans show on-road Advanced Stop Lines the plans appear to have a ‘dual network’ cycling provision – one on-road for those who want convenience and direct routes, and one off-road for those who want safety away from motor traffic. As a result the plans show two flawed networks, as both qualities are necessary for all who cycle.

5. Does not connect to existing segregated network

Does not connect continuously, smoothly, or directly to important routes, existing network, or important destinations. I will accept that the plans are an improvement, but this deserves little recognition as it would be difficult to make Temple Circus worse.

The new segregated facility on Clarence Road only connects to Temple Circus via some multi stage crossings and legalising pavement cycling which are very narrow, whether clutter is removed or not. I would expect a cycling network on to be continuous and direct – this is neither.

A new cycling route along Feeder/Cattle Market Road will have an even worse connection, as the direct route to Bristol Temple Meads does not even have legalised pavement cycling. I have been told that the space behind the bus stop may be able to reclaimed to provide a cycle lane later. This shows a reversal of priorities. The multi-lane road here is very wide and should be reduced in width to provide a segregated cycling facility. If the space is reclaimed then the cycling lane and bus stop can be moved to increase the road width.

6. No bus-stop bypasses

These are a common feature in high quality cycling networks, eliminating conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. None are shown on the plans.

7. Continuous pavements across junction

Again a common feature across side streets in high quality networks. There are a number of side roads that this improvement could be implemented.

8. There is only one ‘one-phase’ crossing

This should not be exceptional and should exist on the arms of all junctions. A number of junctions retain the slow and frustrating multi-stage crossings. Notably the only access to the station by bike is shown to use a multi-stage crossing, legalising pavement cycling.

9. Speed reduction through design

The area is a 20mph in writing only. This is insufficient and 20mph should be a natural limit based on the construction of the road. The plans show wide open roads with sweeping corners that encourage high speeds.

Suggested Improvements

A network of segregated cycling facilities is provided

The key point here is that it must be a network, which is defined as a continuous grid of high quality cycle paths. Not, as the plans suggest, where space is available as this is contrary to the council hierarchy of prioritising pedestrians over cyclists, cyclists over public transport, and public transport over private motor traffic.

We drew up an example of how a cycle network should look in and around Temple Circus, as attached.

Simultaneous green

The opportunity should be grabbed to make the new crossroad a simultaneous green junction for people cycling.

A simultaneous green crossing is a special type of crossing used on junctions of all shapes and sizes in the Netherlands. Such a junction would be a groundbreaking first for the UK. Cyclists from all directions have a dedicated green light that allows them to cross at the same time indepently of motor traffic. The new Temple Circus crossroad is the perfect opportunity to create a simultaneous green junction for Bristol Green Capital.



Using our normal five assessment categories we think these proposals have much potential, but need to show more ambition.

Space for Cycling

Does this measure advance the six themes of 1) Protected space on main roads; 2) Remove through motor traffic; 3) Safe routes to school; 4) Cycle friendly town centres; 5) Cycle routes in green spaces; 6) 20mph speed limits?

Amber – overall neutral

Road Danger Reduction

Does this measure seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat?

Green – overall benefit

Triple A Quality (All Ages and Abilities)

Will this measure be attractive to all ages and abilities using all kinds of cycles?

Amber – overall neutral

Strategic Cycling Network

How does this measure contribute to the development of Bristol Council’s planned integrated and coherent strategic cycle network?

Amber – overall neutral


How far does this measure provide for Triple A Space for Cycling in the future?

Green – overall benefit



BCyC Ride Exploring F11 – the ‘Inner Middle Orbital’ Freeway

Sam Saunders lead a group of riders around this route on the proposed Strategic Cycling Network on Sunday 5th October, 2014. There’s a fair bit of work to be done in working up plans that we can use to press the council for changes, but this is good start.  Here’s his report:

Thanks to those who patiently followed me round my version of the Bristol Strategic Cycling Network’s  Inner Middle Orbital Cycling Freeway (F11) this morning. A chilly start was cheered up with various cakes and coffees in St Werburgh’s. After that things got warmer and tougher. Sylvia Avenue was probably my favourite bit.

Despite Bristol’s noble efforts to put cycle infrastructure in it was obvious that bits and bobs of cycle lane are nowhere near what would be demanded of a dedicated network. Short sections of not too bad provision are interspersed with quite a lot of hostile road.

I said I would invite comments in this forum from anyone who was on the ride,about specific things we noticed or learned about what would be needed to make something like F11 a genuine route that was worth signposting and advertising. Anyone else is more than welcome to add commetns of course. The more the merrier.

The map I worked from was the web version of the Bristol Strategic Cycling Network at: 


Sam Saunders
Key points of note:
  • Easton Way – as an alternative to Easton Way itself, there is a proposed cycle route on roads  just N of and close to Easton Way that Nick Pates presented at a recent monthly cycling projects meeting.  I think such a route would more naturally lead into the roundabout subways through to the other side of the roundabout 
  • St Philip’s Causeway – surprisingly OK.  Segregated cycle way is separated from main roadway by hatched strip for much of the way.  Great views !
  • Arnos Vale cemetery – great route, good surface
  • Sylvia Avenue – great views !
  • St John’s Lane/Bedminster Road  – unpleasant.  Busy with traffic.  Not a very wide road, so solution may not be easy ?
  • Parsons Street triangle – needs the second part of a contraflow to be completed through to Winterstoke Road – to avoid the hill and the traffic
  • Wintertstoke Road – surprisingly good segregated cycle way
  • Clanage Road/Rownham Hill  – quite busy with traffic.  Not a very wide road, so solution may not be easy ?  
  • Rownham Hill – A very steep bit through trees – OK going down but not up – narrow, so no easy solution.  Use Burwalls Road instead ? 
  • from the Suspension Bridge to Whiteladies Road – works well

Bristol Cycling Network

Bristol Cycling Campaign has produced a concise strategy for cycling in Bristol. This sets out how we will achieve Space for Cycling.

The strategy is affordable, maintaining current spending levels of £16 per head of population per year, and can be delivered in just 12 years for a total of £109m.

We have mapped out the network of strategic routes shown here that connect every neighbourhood. These can also be seen in an innovative ‘Top Tube’ map to make it really clear.

Our vision is for every street to be a cycling street, linked by 200 miles of Cycling Freeways and Quietways. There are three elements to the network:

Read more ...

Want Space for Cycling in Bristol? Support Bristol Cycling Sign me up!

Login Form