Great Western Coffee Shop

From This is Bath: (http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/story-15519992-detail/story.html)

Sustrans:

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/plans-rapid-transit-link-along-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-our-response


Railfuture:

https://www.railfuture.org.uk/Press+release+13th+February+2018

I read the first post in this thread and thought, Good, bits of that section are awful. Then I noticed the date; it's referring to work done almost six years ago. Shame they only did such small sections!

As for the light rail link, I've no idea what understanding there was when the path was first established but I wonder if any of those original understanding parties are still around? Avon County Council has gone, and though Sustrans is still around, the path actually pre-dates them. It's been there an awfully long time now; it's actually older than the mean age of UK population (which is 41)! Width? Probably ok for a single track from around Warmley east. The Bristol end is narrower, has a couple of steep gradients and a few sharp corners.

Sorry about that ... linking up new stories with old ones!


Interesting question. I believe that when something is sold with a covenant on it (do I have the right term?) than covenant can only be released with the agreement of all bodies / inheriting bodies with interest

This is a bit like watching two friends getting into a fist-fight.

I too am intrigued by Bruce Williamson's claim that the Railway Path was "established... on the clear understanding that it would be returned to rail use should the need arise". I'd be interested to see where that understanding was documented. Presumably the people whose houses were built on the trackbed at Clay Bottom will have some reference to it in their deeds? Or is he mis-remembering?

Williamson also points out that the Avon Valley Railway shares the alignment with the cycle path "in the Bitton area", and from this he deduces that there is room to share the whole route. But Bitton is one of the quieter stretches of the cycle path - the section through Easton is much busier, particularly in the rush hour; arguably it could benefit from widening.

Cyclists will also be rather wary of Williamson's suggestion that problems can be solved by "a small diversion for the cycle route" - such diversions tend to be badly-planned at best, unsafe at worst.

I don't mean to take sides here, but I'm worried that Railfuture are making the sort of error that leads to MetroBus - rather than committing to what is needed (a good solution along the Bristol - Keynsham - Saltford - Bath axis), they are looking at 'nearly good enough' options that might be easy. I think they'll be surprised at how not easy it is, when once again they take on the Bristol cycling community..!

Many years ago in the days of Avon the proposal for the greater Bristol LRT had a line from the centre to Emersons Green which used the route of the old midland railway (now cycle path) as far as Staple Hill.  That was before the alterations in the Fishponds area to build a Safeway store (now Morrisons) were undertaken.

A brief potted history of the Bristol & Bath Railway Path (hopefully mainly accurate though my memory isn't that good these days):

The first bit of path built on this alignment was done by the old Kingswood council, and had signs for long afterwards that directed people to the Old Railway Line (or something similar). However, the first purpose built section of cyclepath (or to be more accurate shared use path, for use of both cyclists and pedestrians) was conceived by Cyclebag, who were the cycling campaign group in Bristol in the early 1970s, who convinced Bristol council to fund a small section. From this, a number of Cyclebag members conceived the idea of building a path along the whole alignment from Bristol to Bath, and set up a sustainable engineering company called Sustrans, who put together a report for this. Once the first bits had shown how successful they were, Sustrans worked with Avon County Council on finding ways to fund and build the whole path (the rural sections were originally built as narrow lime dusted paths but Avon then improved the path to a standard tarmac 3 metre path). By this time, Sustrans were starting to put forward ways to take this idea forward elsewhere, and from this conceived the idea of the National Cycle Network.

I'm not aware of any agreements which would put the path back to rail use, but I expect the statement by Bruce Williamson comes from Sustrans early statements to the effect that their work was generally saving old rail lines for future sustainable transport usage, which could include rail. Various proposals have been made over the years for this, and has been noted, various developments have occurred, such as those at Clay Bottom, which would render these very difficult or impossible to achieve.

Cyclebag are still going, in some form. http://www.cyclebageast.btik.com

Yes, Cyclebag as a city-wide campaign group finished around the end of the 70s when it was superseded by Bristol Urban Cycling Campaign and most of its energy went into Sustrans, but a splinter group has remained in east Bristol to this day.

How many houses/businesses etc are likely to have to be demolished if light rail + cycleway were chosen as an option on this corridor?

Probably half a dozen or so at Clay Bottom. There are other places where it's a bit tight.

Such as possible knockdown of a few Mangotsfield new-builds etc, along with realignment at Fishponds Morrisons and the closure of the Avon Valley Railway? So, well within the realms of precedent/feasibility when you consider what was done on the Borders Railway, then.

One would imagine that light rail would be well-used on a corridor isolated some way from the National Rail Network, have a significant impact on the high levels of congestion there, and be easier to sell to objectors than Bus Rapid Transit was.

I'd say it's down to how much balls local/regional politicians ultimately have, along with the ability of pro-light rail campaigners to outweigh their cycling counterparts.

For those of us who live in the Staple Hill / Downend / Mangotsfield area, there's no end of us who hold onto the idea of the cycle path someday returning to rail use (albeit single track so the cycle / pedestrian path can remain alongside). We even have one of the old brown signs pointing to the 'Old Railway Line' at the bottom of Teewell hill just down the road taunting us!   ;)

Appreciate this has caused many a long and heated debate over the years, but those of us in the North East of the Greater Bristol Area who don't have the ability to cycle are currently - and have been for a very long time - reliant on either our cars, or even worse our bus service, both of which can take anything up to an hour to reach the centre in rush hour!

We were promised Metrobust in the early stages and have gone through years of disruption with traffic diversions etc while the new bus lanes were built on the ring road, only to find out later that the whole Downend area is now being bypassed completely with the new buses (if they ever run) running straight along the ring road, with our nearest stops being Hambrook or Emersons Green.  Of course, they've concentrated everything on Emersons due to available parking, but what about those of us who've lived here for longer than Emersons even existed?!  And as we now know even more money is having to be ploughed into it as the roads to BPW aren't wide enough for the new buses to access!

Our buses to BPW have been halved in number, and we have no direct bus services to BRI, and yet hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent to provide Metrobust which will serve Emersons very nicely, but leave a huge portion of NE Bristol (Staple Hill, Soundwell, Downend, Fishponds, Mangotsfield etc etc etc) still without a decent - and more importanly accessible without a 30 minute hike to the nearest stop - public transport system

So it's no wonder that we often look so longingly at the cycle path and dream of a direct rail service to escape the daily jams on Fishponds Road... and with our dreaming hats on even more so if we hadn't lost the 13 arches viaduct and could hop on a train directly to Clifton!   ;)

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to debate, and there's no good reason I can see to stop debating it (though arguably this thread has long since deviated from the OP - blame grahame!)

Anything is possible it there's a political will. But there isn't any. Bristol pretty much gave up on new roads as an answer 30 years ago, but can't do anything else without the Dibleys. The Dibleys, bless 'em, are still intent on building a New Los Angeles. Forget public transport; they'd banish pavements if they thought they could get away with it. </rant>

Yup very true.  Shame we don't have our own version of Tfl like London, or even better create a 'Western Powerhouse' to start getting some major investment over this way...  tho am sure a lot would argue we're already getting that with the GWR mainline upgrade.  That's great for those commuting thru the Thames valley, but still doesn't solve the commuter problem of Bristol itself (at least until we finally get some progress on Metrowest) and it constantly being voted as one of the most congested cities in the UK!  Of course we do have our Metro Mayor now, but from someone who lives literally a few hundred metres outside of the city limits thereby falling into S Gloucs territory, the only voice we seem to hear with regards to anything transport related is from Mr Rees - multi billion pound underground system anyone?!   ;)

It's just a constant bug bear with so many new multi million pound feasibility studies and consultations that lead nowhere other than the obvious for this that and the other, when we have a perfectly (almost intact) rail corridor still here!  Just running it on it's old alignment as far as Mangotsfield would be great, and need hardly any alterations.  With a new viaduct it could span the ring road across to Emersons and pick up all of that new traffic which is basically a whole town now, and onwards to join the still intact Westerleigh line to Yate.  Another viaduct could take it onto Warmley and thus to Bath, the easiest way being to connect it to the existing main line just past Saltford and run thru to Bath Spa to avoid the need to dig up all the way to Green Park

And absolutely ideally for the days when I worked at Aztec West which was a commuter nightmare from here, a south to west spur at Westerleigh Junction to connect to BPW, PWY and AZT - yes the already mentioned possible station at Aztec - I remember the endless frustrating afternoons dreading the hour long drive home when we could literally hear the railway at our office, as it was the large one right at the bottom corner next to the line itself

Still, we can dream.  Metrowest phase 4?!   ;)

There are also stops at the Emerald Business Park and Wick Wick Roundabouts on the Ring Road
Which is a joke, a Park and Ride car park with no more than a 100 or so parking spaces, I've seen bigger pub car parks.
Haven't heard that one unless you mean the Ashton guided bit.
Well yes the half hourly service 18 serving Southmead Hospital via BPW was withdrawn and replaced by an hourly split 10/11 service both terminating at BPW. The service 19/19A still provides between them a half hourly service to BPW from Kingswood, Soundwell, Staple Hill and Downend.
Yes, well who in their right minds will want to be transported half way round Bristols Northern Suburbs Ring Road and then via the UWE Frenchay Campus just to get into Bristols Centre 1 minute earlier than walking down ones residential street to the Staple Hill Road and catching a service 49 bus. Another thing is why serve the Frenchay campus with the M3 at all when that location already has a frequent service to the city centre on the service route UWE. The M3 will pass the Hambrook access slip road to the M32 and this could add up to 10 minutes more to the jounrney times into the city. FFS why don't they route the M3 route onto the M32 at the earliest opportunity, no they want to make this white elephant A BRILLIANT WHITE ELEPHANT.

I'll tell ee fur shore the residents of Emersons Green, Blackhorse, Downend and Bromley Heath ain't gonna be very appy when they realise the X48 is being replaced by Metrobus route M3 and they got to get used to using the slower routes 5, 7, 47, 48 and 49 services into the central area.


Don't worry, Marvin (Bristols elected mayor) has got all that sorted in his plans for a Bristol Underground, there will be a route Fishponds - Greenbank - Eastville Retail Park (alight here for IKEA) - St. Andrews - Redland - Clifton.

Here you go...  you couldn't make this stuff up! 
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/metrobus-widen-bristol-parkway-roads-856809


No, we aint!

Service UWE is also being withdrawn, ostensibly for the summer vac but I bet it won't return

Meanwhile:

It seems Sustrans have been given Department for Transport funding for ‘a community-led re-design to improve the quality of the existing Bristol and Bath railway path’; specifically the busy section between St Phillips and Clay Bottom. (https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sustrans-bbrp-concept-designs-december2019.pdf)

Bristol Cycling Campaign are not happy. In their response (https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCyC-Response-to-Sustrans-BBRP-Proposals-06012020.pdf), they point out that the railway path is primarily a path, not a park. They may have a point!

Sustrans (who, let us remember, were instrumental in creating the path out of a disused railway) seem to think the best answer to congestion and conflicting uses is to confuse and divert cyclists, whilst encouraging people to linger in some of the narrowest most dangerous bits of the path.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. For those who hope that one day trains will also run along this route: Good luck with that!

Up to a point. Conversion of the disused railway into a cycle path was started in the early 70s by a group calling themselves Cyclebag (still around in some form). Sustrans grew out of that but they weren't the creators of the path. They have been, however, instrumental in making it as successful as it is.

The bit that's really hazardous IME is where it goes under the St Philips Causeway, where it narrows, dips, is divided in two by a kerb (though this is one of the very few places in the UK where pedestrian/cycle segregation actually seems to be followed) and there are bollards in the track. And on  a rail note, is there any plan for the track alongside, which used to transport waste to/from the St Philips recycling facility, to be used in future? As a cycling friend pointed out, the only way to increase width there would be to tarmac over the rails...

As for the rest of it, more plants, seating and sculptures and so on would actually be nice – as long as it doesn't reduce capacity of the path as a path.

It will be, one way or another...

Bristol Cycling Campaign mention this section; the Sustrans scheme is actually an improvement here.


Ay, there's the rub. The guiding principle of the proposals seems to be to use planting, seating and sculpture right in the middle of the path in order to slow down cyclists. The alternative - a straightforward segregation of cyclists and pedestrians, so that the former can safely go fast and the latter can safely go slowly, doesn't seem to feature. This seems eccentric given that this is primarily a path. It seems even more eccentric given that the surrounding area contains a lot of parks and open spaces that don't have the busiest cycle route in the land running through them... As a two-track rail formation, there is plenty of room to segregate users (as per Sustrans' own guidelines) for much of the route.

Somewhat OT:"Three counties"? Well, yes; or three unitary authorities to be technically correct. But in this case "the two cities" and the towns between them form such an obvious functional single area that it does show up how artificial local authority boundaries can be.

Having read the whole BCyC response now, I find it a lot clearer to follow than the original Sustrans document – that lacked context to the diagrams. I don't agree with all their comments but I think they're right to be wary of the introduction of too much seating, wiggly routing and general dilution of the function as a path; at the same time we have to recognize that for many people it actually does serve as a destination in itself (which might be a symptom of the lack of other places to go to be away from traffic).

And I'm glad they raised the question of which side people should walk. As a cyclist on the path, my opinion is that it's best if runners stick to the left but walkers keep to the right. My thinking being that it's easy for a cyclist to slow down to runner speed and wait behind a runner till there's an opportunity to overtake, but not so easy to cycle at walking speed. Also, if walkers are facing the oncoming cyclists, nobody will be surprised by an unexpected overtake. However, having also walked the entire length of the BBRP (yes, in one go!), I'm not so sure that this is best for pedestrians, especially after dark. In practice, of course, many people walk in a group covering the whole width.

But mostly, if I were given £1.1 million to improve cycling in Bristol (and the other "two counties"!), I wouldn't spend any of it on the BBRP (except perhaps at the St Philips Causeway underpass). That path isn't perfect but it's certainly good, and building some things like that on a smaller scale in other areas would do far more good than any upgrades.

Yes three ancient counties, the County of Gloucestershire, the County of Somerset and the City and County of Bristol.  Bath may have been a county borough, but it remained part of the County of Somerset. Bristol on the other hand was a County in its own right. This situation remains the case for ceremonial purposes.

Odd that the word security doesn't obviously appear after various reports of attacks on cyclists.

Unfortunately there a proportion of cyclists who can't get it into their heads that a shared path is not where you train for the Tour de France. Not helped by measuring distance in time, with no obvious difference between cycle only and shared paths.

Slightly OT. Cycled the Hanson Way (NCN 5, Didcot to Newbury) yesterday. The section that runs parallel to the railway from Sandford Lock lane to the Cowley branch bridge has been tarmaced, very useful.

The path runs through Bristol, South Glos and BANES, in today's definitions.

These modern local authorities are still in the three named ancient counties "for ceremonial purposes", which I think means the Lord Lieutenant, High Sheriff etc.   

I feel the need to point out that whilst B&NES and South Glos may for all I know be in ceremonial counties, Bristol is a county - nothing ceremonial about it.

Aside from a brief period in suspended animation when it was unceremoniously kludged into the County of Avon, Bristol has been a county since 1373. It was a county before it was a city, a status it achieved as recently as 1542.

Getting back to the path itself, and Bristol* Cycling Campaign's response to the Sustrans proposals, I find it odd that they refer to it as a park, when – although it may technically be so – nobody ever calls it that and their main point is that it does and should function primarily as a route.

*I've no idea whether they define this as city, county or unitary authority, if indeed they define it at all.

The latest update from Sustrans on the update to the Bristol and Bath Railway Path:
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2020/september/what-s-happening-on-the-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-an-update-on-the-onepath-bs5-project/ (https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2020/september/what-s-happening-on-the-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-an-update-on-the-onepath-bs5-project/)

They've recognized the futility of the pedestrian/cyclist split in the width available. Good!

Actually I'm a bit bewildered by this. The clear width of a double track railway - which is what, for the most part, this is - is between 7.3 and 8.5m.

Sustrans say:


This seems eccentric. Aside from a section through Clay Bottom where houses have been built on the trackbed, the constraints must all be ecological; there are very few topographical constraints and they could mostly be fixed with a short hire of some yellow plant. Mitigating for the ecological constraints would involve care, but should be do-able.

Gear Change says that we shouldn't give up at the difficult places. Sustrans seemed to have looked at LTN 1/20 and given up. It doesn't bode well.

Ecological or financial?

Quite possibly a bit of both

The line was originally built to link the pits around Coalpit Heath to Bristol but, when that became the Bristol and Gloucester Railway, ended up as a double track broad gauge railway.

It is therefore theoretically possible to re-widen the railway path (emphasis on theoretically of course). But to do so would cost a considerable amount of money ? landslips and vegetation encroachment has been substantial over the years.

However, when this was last discussed on this forum I expressed my severe misgivings about separating cyclists and pedestrian, because of the possibility if not certainty that a separation would encourage some cyclists to higher speeds and, especially on the downhill section from Fishponds, would in my view make the path more dangerous for pedestrians rather than less. Pedestrians can join the path from either side at many locations, which means that pedestrians would have to cross the cycle lane.

Perhaps those in charge of formulating these proposals have realised this. After all, it would only need a death or two of pedestrians on the bank to see calls for cycling on the path to be prohibited, and that is not the result that anyone with any sense would welcome. That of course wouldn?t stop a local authority who felt they ?had to be seen to do something? doing exactly that.

That fact that this was originally broad gauge had slipped my mind. That implies that the available width is probably at least 8.5m.

LTN 1/20 recommends a width of 4m for a path taking this level of traffic, reducing to a minimum 3m only where it is impossible to accommodate this. The pedestrian path requires an additional 1.8m. This suggests that, with the exception of the Clay Bottom section, there is plenty of room. Much of what is of ecological value is on the extensive embankments and cutting sides.

The level of cycle traffic on this route (over 1800 vehicles [yes, vehicles - read LTN 1/20] per hour) emphatically demands separation of cyclists and pedestrians.

Pedestrians join the path at designated points. In many cases it may be appropriate to put in zebra crossings or even traffic signals. This may seem fanciful, but elsewhere in Europe that is precisely how these problems are addressed. And if this seems expensive, then for perspective bear in mind that the path carries more people in the morning rush than the Severn Beach railway.

But these are just my ramblings; Bristol Cycling Campaign's considered response (https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCyC-Response-to-Sustrans-BBRP-Proposals-06012020.pdf) is much more coherent and comprehensive.

However... there is an argument that the inner urban section of this path is never going to be able to offer the level of passive surveillance of paths alongside roads. Although this is for much of the day a very busy route, there are times when there aren't many people about and at such times it can feel threatening. The actual level of crime is probably rather lower than the perception - it seems that every incident is gleefully reported in the local papers - but many people would rather take their chances with the traffic than use this section.

What are the alternatives? A link via Clay Bottom and Royate Hill viaduct to Fishponds Road could work, though it probably wouldn't satisfy the LTN 1/20 requirement for directness. Probably a new segregated path from the central area along the A432 linking to the Railway Path near Lodge Causeway would work better. Could that be part of the answer?

I have not done any checking but the Bath branch was for its 19th+ century life, part of the Midland Railway. So that tends to indicate the infrastructure was designed for standard gauge.

Possibly the early history was different but the GWR or its constituent parts were not involved in this route.

The section of the railway path from Mangotsfield to Bath was indeed constructed by the Midland Railway. That's not the section we're discussing here though; the section in question - between Fishponds and central Bristol - was built by the Bristol and Gloucester Railway to broad gauge. The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley; the Midland managed to court the B&G away from the GWR and by 1854 it was mixed gauge. But the result - a lovely wide trackbed, with plenty of room for separate cycleways and footpaths - remains.

T was typing away as RedSquirrel was posting and he said everything I had in mind to say!

The Bristol Cycling Campaign response is to Sustrans' earlier suggestions, isn't it? The announcement that Sustrans now consider the path too narrow for those plans is very recent. (Didn't they survey the path at all before drawing up their plans?)

For my own information I have looked at the various access points between Mangotsfield and Lawrence Hill. I my view separation between Mangotsfield and Fishponds would not be an issue but I included it anyway. Access points are described in terms of going towards Bristol

Signal Road Staple Hill access from right
Station Road Staple Hill access from left
Staple Hill station access both sides
Thicket Avenue access from left
Forest Road access from left
Fishponds station access from right
Filwood Road access from right
Alcove Road Dominion Road access both sides
Maggs Lane access to right
Clay Bottom access to right
Greenbank Road Gordon Road access both sides
Bruce Road access both sides
Chelsea Park access to right
Battersea Road access to right
Whitehall Road access to left
Kilburn Street access to right
Whitehall Road Cannon Street access to left
Brixton Road access to right
Lawrence Hill Croydon Street access to right

I may have missed a few. There is also a school down there somewhere, I think near Bruce Road where I believe what the Bristol Cycling Campaign calls a so-called zebra crossing is.

The section that most concerns me is that between Clay Bottom and Lawrence Hill. It is dead straight for the best part of 2 miles and on a 1in 80 gradient. As will be seen from the list above, there are 11 access points on that stretch, four from the left and seven from the right. Add a speeding cyclist into that mix is asking for trouble in the first place, and giving those cyclists a dedicated lane on that downhill stretch is asking for even more trouble.

I suppose you could provide segregation and strategically-place speed humps along there, but I wonder what cyclists would make of that? They don?t appear to be too keen on the so-called zebra crossing.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not an anti-cyclist post as I too was a regular one until my eyesight deteriorated so much that I can no longer safely do it. I am simply trying to inject some realism and practicality into the discussion. I have walked and cycled this route on many occasions (and also been on trains on it, but that is rather academic these days!)

I have both cycled the path end to end numerous times and walked it about three times. It feels a lot further on foot than on a bike! I've even walked it in the dark, which is interesting (in a good way). Though I should say I've only ever walked from Bath to Bristol (having taken the train to Bath), never the other way. Looking at it from both sets of experiences, segregation is a boon when done well but a curse when done badly. Good separation allows walkers and runners to make their way on foot without fear of being hit by a cyclist and cyclists to ride without having to lose momentum for walkers and without having to avoid for instance dogs, whether off lead or, worse IMO, on those expanding but hard to see leads.

Good separation needs two things IMO&E: width and distinctness. It obviously needs to be at least four "dynamic person units" wide to allow separate streams in each direction. Because pedestrians and cyclists vary widely in speed, control and situational awareness, from toddlers to athletes in training, it also needs to allow for safe overtaking. By "dynamic person units" I mean a cyclist isn't actually any wider than a pedestrian, and is probably narrower than a mobility scooter, but because of their shape and the way in which they move (including but not only speed), they need a wider "envelope" around them. Two walkers can, if necessary, pass shoulder to shoulder (social distancing aside!) but two cyclists have to be very skilled to do this, regardless of speed.

It also has to be clear which side is for walkers and which for wheels. Not just clear with symbols and so on but clear as to why; the walking side has to be in some way more appealing to walk on than the cycling side, or else people will walk both sides. Why wouldn't they? It's relatively easy to make the walking side unattractive for cycling by use of bollards and so on, but harder to make a path that's designed for cycling less appealing to walking. The various edge cases (roller skaters, faster runners, toddlers on balance bikes, mobility scooters, kickalong scooters, etc) are best dealt with on a case by case basis.

A good example of bad separation can be seen on the Concorde way where it runs past Filton Abbey Wood and the MoD. The path has been divided into two equal-width parts with a white line. This leaves insufficient width for one cyclist to pass another without one of them going into the walking half. This can become a game of chicken or sometimes of double-chicken, where both assume the other is staying put and both move over! The remaining width is only just sufficient for two people to walk past each other, too. It would be far better if this section were either undivided, like the section immediately to the south running past the Lockleaze playing fields, or were divided by direction of travel rather than mode.

Returning to the Bristol-Bath Path, as it was originally double broad gauge track, the width should be there to make for decent separation, apart from Clay Bottom and one or two other places like by the TV studios and the waste siding. But somehow it doesn't all feel that wide. I guess an awful lot of clearance and foundation work would need to be done.

I don't think Sustrans have published any new plans since those they outlined in their consultation last year. All that's new is their recent statement that they'll be publishing updated plans soon. I suppose the reason that my ears have pricked up is that Sustrans have said it is too hard to apply the principles of LTN 1/20; to my mind this looks less like 'Gear Change' and more like 'Cyclists Dismount'.


The well-engineered cycle paths of the Netherlands and, increasingly, elsewhere in the world use the same kind of hardware as other roads - traffic signals, zebra crossings and so on. If cycling is to take its place as serious mass transit then this kind of thing needs to consistently implemented and policed.

For some cyclists, this may stick in the craw. Tough!

Whether anyone has the same concerns as me or not, I suspect that this is the issue that will stand in the way of widening.

It isn?t a matter of simply sending a JCB in to scrape a bit of weed and topsoil away (although even that wouldn?t come cheap over a 16-mile run and more if you did the route out to Westerleigh as well).

There would need to be sufficient depth dug out to form foundations, drainage may need to be altered, access points would need modification and some if not all of the street lights would have to be moved. Also, given that some 10 years elapsed between the railway?s closure and the route being inaugurated in its new form, there might be sewers, water mains, gas pipes or electricity cable runs buried under there.

And all that before you start to talk about separation bollards between the two halves, and possibly traffic calming measures such as speed humps, gates or chicanes to slow the faster cyclists down on the bank.

I?ll leave someone else who has more Quantity Surveying experience than me to price that lot, but it will be clear to everybody that it won?t be funded from a series of jumble sales and collection tins ? unless we ask Tony Berkeley and his group to cost it of course...  ;)

Well yes, that's the change. Sustrans have now said their previous plans are not valid, so any response to those previous plans is therefore also invalid and will have to be updated in due course.

We are mainly discussing the section from Fishponds into Bristol, so 4km at most. Beyond that things are much less contentious. The cost ought to be slightly less than the price of a two-lane road, as in essence that's what they'd be building. It would just be a road for bikes, not cars.

Speed control features may be necessary, but not the kind of often-dangerous and badly-planned contrivances that we have become used to. Do I get away with mentioning LTN 1/20 again?

There is a quid pro quo here. If decent money is to be spent on cycling infrastructure, then cyclists have to use it responsibly. A 4m path will allow faster riders to overtake the slow, but crossings and signals will have to be respected by all.

The problem is that there is a minority of cyclists who think rules don't apply to them, just as with motorists. Says he, having just cycled to work and avoiding cyclists who think cycle/drive on the left does not apply!

There's a wider point here as well. There isn't, as we know, much money spent on cycling infrastructure. The very fact that the government treats Sustrans, a charity, as a civil service agency where in other fields it might create a "Cycleways England", indicates this. Given that there isn't much funding and that the BBRP is already pretty good, I'd far rather see cycle infrastructure improvements in other parts of Bristol. These shouldn't be alternatives, but then they should have been done 40 years ago.

Well... the government have just quadrupled the annual spend on cycling infrastructure. Four times not very much is still not very much, but then cycling infrastructure is really cheap (even when, as rarely happens, it is done well) compared with any other type of transport system.

My take on this section of the BBRP is that it isn't fit for purpose. I would rather take my chances on Fishponds Road.

Fishponds Road and all the other roads that might benefit from some decent cycle infrastructure aren't of course in Sustrans' remit to do anything to. But that's where IMO the something is needed. And within what Sustrans can do, there's an awful lot of far worse paths than this one. As Sustrans themselves acknowledged not so long ago. I think the figure they came up with was only 46% of their network could be classified as good?

I think you might be in a minority there on both counts  ;D

On the section of Fishponds Road and Stapleton Road that form the alternative route, you have quite heavy traffic congestion all day. There are traffic lights at Fishponds Morrisons, Lodge Causeway, Royate Hill, Muller Road, Eastville Junction and the sheer joys of crossing the Inner Ring Road near Armoury Square. A whole lot of fun is not a description that springs to mind.

When I lived in Staple Hill as a kid and often rode my bike into Bristol (the railway was still open then of course so the path didn't exist) I often went via Whitehall and Soundwell rather than Eastville and Fishponds because it always seemed the quieter and safer route even then - and that was in the 1960s!

Now I have to admit that whilst I have walked and ridden the path numerous times I have never done it in the peak, so I shall have to take other peoples word for it about congestion on the path at those times. That said, we do appear to have had a step change in working and commuting habits that seem increasing likely to last well beyond the present pandemic, and indeed might never return to what was once normal at all.

This then begins to beg the question wehther any proposed improvements are trying to solve yesterdays problems rather than todays? I am nof forming a view one way or the other, but simply posing the question.

No-one really knows what the post-COVID world will look like, but there does seem to be a growing consensus that cycling and walking must play a much greater role in urban transport.. For this to happen, it has to become easier and safer to cycle, and harder and more expensive to drive. That's today's problem, and tomorrow's.

According to DfT Statistics (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906698/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf), 42% of people over 5 years old have access to a bicycle, but 66% of over-18's think it is too dangerous to cycle on the road. There is a clear opportunity here! To quote Gear Change:

It was only when I quoted you to reply I realised hat there was a link in there!

In my experience polls do not necessarily show what one might think or like to believe they show. To me it suggests that money might also need to be spent on education when people may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I doubt that a poll of cyclists only would support that poll outcome.

For example, if you conducted a poll amongst non-rail users about what they thoight of the railways, you would probably find a majority of people thinking that trains were always late, filthy, horrifically expensive and the staff were specially trained in how to be as rude to passengers as possible.

And I wouldn't set too much store by that either  ;D

I think the poll suggests that there may be significant untapped demand for safe cycling routes.

Experience in other countries suggests that when well-engineered, coherent networks are built they are very popular. Gear Change is an apt title, though what the government propose could perhaps be better described as a sea change. LTN 1/20 is not just about men with a penchant for lycra. It also seeks to make cycling routes accessible to less-able people, so that for example tricycles and electrically-assisted bikes are catered for. Visual impairment presents its own challenges, but good design such as contrasting materials and tactile surfaces can help.

Tell me about it  ;D

My glaucoma makes it very difficult to disnguish grey items from other grey items. so often finding the kerb whan crossing a road can involve a bit of luck and guesswork. In addition, street furniture such as street lights and poles for traffic signs and waste bins are often grey so as to be unobtrusive, which is great for sighted people but something of a nuisance when I walk into the bloody things...

A couple of ywars ago I went head first over an empty upturned black recycling box because it was a bright sunlit day but that bit of pavement was in shade, and I hadn't seen it coming...

But I digress. The point I was making was that perception and reality can often be two different things. 66% of over 18s may well say they think its dangerous to cycle on the road and, if they are biking it up Edgeware Road or Temple Way in Btistol I may well agree with them, althouh those self-same over 18-year olds would probably have no problem crossing those roads as a pedestrian. But if they are cycling the back streets of a major city or around most of the main roads in an average market town, I would suggest they are overestimating the dangers.

I am certainly not saying that we shouldn't provide better cycling routes, but I am suggesting that trying to point out what the true situation is out there would be beneficial.

As an aside, when I was a kid only one member of my extended family had a car, my fathers brother in law. and he laid that up for the four months of the winter. If I wanted to go anywhre it was on the train or bus if I could afford it, or more often on the bike. And anyone who is thinking of a rejoinder such as "ah yes but there was less traffic back then" might do well to remember there were no motorways and few bypasses either, and the traffic on Fishpomds Road in Bristol was just as bad then as it is now!

For my younger readers here is an informative video of what Gloucester was like in those days. There are plenty of people on bikes to be seen, and not a safety helmet in sight!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDtjscPwrKY

It's busy but in a different way to nowadays. Far fewer cars and more but smaller lorries compared to what you'd find in a city centre today. And virtually no vans! Didn't see many buses either. Just as significantly, the traffic seemed to behave in a different way; more of a constant slow flow with the few hold ups caused by bad parking (that hasn't changed) or vehicles in front turning right, rather than today's stop, start and accelerate.

The irony being that so far, many of those obstacles have been introduced in the name of cycling; the barriers and gates intended to keep cars and motorbikes off cycle paths. Worst IMO are the foot-height things with one low side and one high side, but I'm sure everyone's got their own anti-favourite.

I don't think we should read too much into the detail because we will never know what didn't make the final edit.

There were certainly plenty of buses around in Gloucester at that time, and delivery vans too. I think the overall impression one gets is more important - city centres were certainly not devoid of traffic in those days and cyclists (Gloucester was sometimes called The Land of Bikes back then because the city is relatively flat) just got on with it.

Cycling was actually more restricted in those days, with cycling on the pavement and through parks a distinct no-no. And you were much more likely to be stopped by that now-extinct breed, the copper on the beat, for any transgressions. And the same would have happened to those bad parkers when PC Plod ambled along.

I could easily turn this post into a parody of The Four Yorkshireman sketch but we're far enough off topic already  ;D

Thanks for the link to the video, Robin.

I was struck by the distinctive red and white cars on the transporter visible from about 7:35 to 7:50, but am having difficulty identifying them. I wondered whether they might be examples of some sort of Ford (Consul? Popular?) or Sunbeam Rapiers, but I'm not sure that either of those suggestions is correct (the cars on the transporter have an external spare wheel mounted on the boot). Does anyone know?

(Apologies for prolonging the off-topic digression.)

Nash Metropolitan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Metropolitan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Metropolitan)
American car made by Austin the ones in the video where proberbly being moved from Longbridge to Avonmouth.

Thank you, Tony! I had just found it myself. Not a car I've come across, but I see they were mainly made for export.

Though rare, they were quite well-known here in the 1960s. I guess the distinctive looks made up for the low numbers. And - whatever their official name - I knew them as Nash Metropolitans.  Mind you, that Nash was often confused with Frazer-Nash.

They were strangely entertaining to drive! and had upside down kingpins in the front suspension set up .

Here's an illustration of how a double-track railway can be converted into a high-capacity cycle path and an attractive park at the same time. Imagine how much better it would have been if they'd had a double track broad gauge formation to play with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6c22OHobk

Compared to the plans Sustrans have/had for BBRP, that does seem to be far more of a linear path and less of a windy, crossy-sidey, pretty park.


(As an aside, I wish those BicycleDutch videos would find another narrator; that guy's voice sends me to sleep.)

Easier to manage conflict in Utrecht, though, where there's high-quality cycle infrastructure everywhere. The issue with the BBRP is that it's pretty much the only good-quality, safe cycle route for miles around, so everyone from high-speed Stravaites to toddlers on balance bikes gets funneled onto the one path.

Agreed. But I'd still feel much safer if there was a hedge between my toddler and the cyclists...

From what I see, although that is limited to videos, that particular path in Utrecht is unusual for the Netherlands in having a hedge between cyclists and pedestrians. On most Dutch paths your toddler would either be on the cycle-side with everyone from Granny to the Stravaites or on the foot-side but the two are adjacent. But it seems to work in part because the paths are "roads for cycling" so cope with both toddlers and Stravaites side-by-side.

Anyway, I agree with Richard on the BBRP; the best improvement to it would to be create some other infrastructure in a completely different part of town.

Part of NCN 5 going south out of Oxford has pedestrians and cyclists paths separated by a hedge. Assuming users take notice of the signs.

There's been quite a lot of rumbling on the Bristol Cyclists Facebook group about an increase in people being attacked between Fishponds and Mangotsfield. Now the BBC are reporting it:

Source: BBC

from
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-1-december-2020-279135 (https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-1-december-2020-279135)

https://road.cc/content/news/sustrans-unveils-changes-bristol-bath-railway-path-280647 (https://road.cc/content/news/sustrans-unveils-changes-bristol-bath-railway-path-280647)
and
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/projects/2019/england/making-the-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-better-for-all/ (https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/projects/2019/england/making-the-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-better-for-all/)
Will the coloured paving idea work? I expect there will be howls of protest about removing 19 trees.

They're putting an awful lot of faith in "intensifying patterns" to reduce speed and moderate behaviour. Also, while no-dig construction might be good for tree roots, those roots are unlikely to be good for the long or even quite short term durability of the new surfaces.

But if they can widen the Clay Bottom wiggle that will be good. Separating cyclists from pedestrians there should be a good idea, to the extent that people keep to the expected side and that there's enough width for all.

Construction set to begin on Bristol and Bath Railway Path upgrades


https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2022/january/construction-set-to-begin-on-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-upgrades/ (https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2022/january/construction-set-to-begin-on-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-upgrades/)

Problems


https://road.cc/content/news/thefts-and-vandalism-slows-cycling-route-works-292663 (https://road.cc/content/news/thefts-and-vandalism-slows-cycling-route-works-292663)

Not quite sure who is the problem, residents who don't want cyclists or cycle thieves who might find their life more difficult.

Neither, I think. The issues as I understand it is that people are dismantling the barriers so that they can continue to use the sections of path which have been closed.

I obviously don't condone these actions, but I can see how people might get frustrated when their direct and familiar route is barred - particularly when there is no obvious obstruction ahead of the barriers. I can think of other examples where major cycle routes have been closed, often for extended periods, with no advanced warning and no adequate diversionary route.

Motorists are easier to divert when there are roadworks. They don't much care if the diversionary route is a bit longer, or hilly.

The Clay Bottom diversion is certainly hillier than staying on the path:

(https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/10335/clay-bottom-diversion-route-from-3rd-may-1.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=730&height=410)

...and the Easton to Whitehall diversion goes, literally, all round the houses:

(https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/10356/easton-to-whitehall-diversion-map.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=730&height=410)

Not sure what the answer is. Plainly areas need to be fenced off to allow people to work safely on the upgrade, but maybe this can be done without completely closing sections of route?

Part of the answer might be that people wouldn't so much mind taking diversions, cycling or walking, if leaving the Railway Path didn't immediately mean using busy roads on which some, especially kids and the nervous – those most likely to be using the path in the first place – feel uncomfortable or downright unsafe. In other words, rather than upgrading the Railway Path, they should be upgrading other roads and paths.