Appendix 1: Prince St CAF: Detailed Feedback from consultation
1. Consultation hub July- August 2016
Q1 Do you agree that Bristol City Council should be promoting schemes that prioritise people
walking, cycling and using public transport?
Q1
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
27 Comments on Q1
1. It simply cannot afford not to!
2. Great to use these modes of transport to improve health but all road users should have the
same level of prioritise especially with electric cars being used as a green solution.
3. Encouraging/enabling people to undertake journeys on foot, by bicycle or on public
transport instead of by car by making these modes safer and more attractive and convenient
will hopefully de-clog the roads to the benefit of essential/unavoidable motor vehicle
journeys such as emergency vehicles, deliveries, and those with disabilities. This will benefit
the local economy by reducing delays caused by congestion caused by unnecessary car
journeys.
4. If we had a public transport system that linked all parts of Bristol it would be brilliant. How
ever I do not think that focusing on cycling and walking is the solution, the bus service does
not cover all areas. A tram is expensive but in the long term would be an effective means of
moving large numbers of people around and through bristol
5. It is important to promote and normalise using all forms of public transport (including
cycling) in the city centre. This will improve safety, air quality and make the centre a much
nicer place to be rather than perpetuating the animosity that is created by vehicle traffic
congestion.
6. The prioritisation of different users is a key issue.
7. But public transport needs to dramatically improve in order to encourage people to use it!
8. But the 'Cycle anywhere any time any speed' idea needs to be discouraged.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
With pedestrians being the most important element to be considered, please.
With particular need for segregation, rather than "shared space"
This should be among the highest priorities for Bistol.
But the cycle routes should be clear. The one built on the centre is a "hidden" cycle lane.
Why do you keep doing this? Baldwin street is a much better designed cycle lane, but it
stops half way
Car use and associated emissions leads to the premature death of 200 Bristolians a year. It is
vitally important we promote more environmentally-friendly forms of transport.
People with physical disabilities need to be able to drive and park close to places they are
getting to. Until our public transport improves everywhere in the city this is essential and
Disabled people should not be disadvantaged more by new systems for Cyclists who by
definition are usually more able .
denoting cycling lanes using slightly raised studs to create a cycling lane in the pavement
works well in Spain so should work here, it helps pedestrians and cyclists,
The pedestrian must always be given first priority. Cycling Schemes which affect pedestrians
should not go ahead before proper investigations on existing usage flow have been
performed
I think shared spaces can work well, but it is an issue when the different 'lanes' are not
obvious e.g. in Queens Square in Bristol, the line between the paths delineating pedestrians
from cyclists is subtle due to the historical setting of the square, and both sets get
understandably frustrated when one set strays across into the others' path.
consider a congestion charge,
As all people walk, pedestrians must get ultimate priority
And linking up existing provision is vital for increased take up
There should be a balance between this ambition and the necessity for vehicles to use the
central area without major inconvenience. It is the car and the commercial vehicle that help
to service and support the businesses that are providing significant funds for the
development of the area.
Walking, Cycling not only reduces vehicles it is also a benefit to public health.
Bristol needs more bridge routes across the harbour side not less, such as the proposed
extension of the prohibition for cars across Princes Bridge.
Strongly agree with the above. BCC strategy needs to both encourage people to engage in
active travel and dissuade people from travelling by car unless essential.
I believe it is very important to keep cycles and pedestrians apart as cyclists will insist on
going at their speed and bully pedestrians. Indeed cyclists already complain of this in relation
to their current position with vehicles.
Very strongly agree - Bristol has a relatively high level of cycling for the UK but much more
needs to be done. Public transport is also a major issue.
City Centre is currently noisy and unpleasant for non-motorised users.
Creating a segregated, 8-80’s, all abilities, cycle route
is a good idea along Prince Street and Wapping Road.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
People should be encouraged to cycle across the
Centre in a managed way
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Giving more space to people walking, cycling and
using public transport rather than private vehicle
traffic is a good idea.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Cycling routes should be improved as part of wider
public realm improvements
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree not disagree
Disagree
Sttrongly disagree
Better cycling routes across the city would encourage
me to cycle
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree not disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Better, clearer, cycling routes help to reduce conflict
with pedestrians.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
30 comments on Q21. Make routes 'too' managed and people won't use them. Make them high quality routes
WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO GO and they will be used, and will increase cycle use.
2. This is a step in the right direction but it’s a very short section of route. If more people are
going to be encouraged to choose cycling over driving it needs to link up with longerdistance routes and a wider comprehensive citywide network that is safe, attractive, legible,
easy to navigate, and takes people where they want to go.
3. Cyclist currently have dedicated cycle routes in Bristol but continue to use the pavements.
4. In my view the entire city centre should be (private) car free. Car free and pedestrianised
cities are the future
5. Prince Street bridge needs to be reopened to cars, as it's closure is causing mayhem.
6. I cycle as my primary mode of transport into the city. I think clearer lanes will work as cyclist
will be able to better follow them however foot traffic is unaware of the affect they have
when they occupy these areas
7. I agree with all of this if the cyclist actually use the cycle lanes.
Too often they don't, and slow down other traffic on the narrowed roadspace available for
other vehicles.
8. Cycling is no good at all for people suffering from osteoarthritis in their knees. I am unable to
cycle. Therefore pedestrians should always be the people at the top of any consideration list.
Most people are able to walk, or use a disability scooter. It is vital that available space is
ALWAYS prioritised for pedestrians..
9. Agree to all but unless the cycle lane is clear to all conflict will remain. Stop building hidden
cycle lanes. Design them with tarmac and white lines so everyone can see its a cycle lane and
not the pavement
10. I cycle every day, but I don't always feel safe. Why should I feel this way when I'm just trying
to get to work? It is imperative BCC gets on with building a safe and connected cycle
network ASAP.
11. The centre will be a problem if the cyclists can cycle where pedestrians are and expect to be
able to walk freely. Children are often running around there. The cycle way needs to be
segregated
12. An explanation as to what a segregated 8-80 is would be a good start
13. please do not discriminate against cars
14. Cyclists MUST be separated from pedestrians. I am afraid to walk on many pavements for
fear of being run down by bicycles, particularly in the centre of the city.
15. The pedestrian/cycle route over prince street bridge must be segregated. The existing kerb
should be kept to keep the cyclist on the roadway rather than on the pedestrian part. There
are far too many pedestrians to do anything else
pero bridge should be pedestrian only
all penant flagstone and iron kerbing should be kept.
due to the expense and loss of character, cutting setts in half should be minimised
cyclists ignore all signs telling them not to cycle- even on the suspension bridge footway
where it is patently obvious that cycling is totally inappropriate. The reason why there are so
many signs in front of m shed is also a testament to this
glad to see seats added, and existing setts retained rather than cut along prince street
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Concerned that not enough room for pedestrians waiting for a bus
I think trying to get cyclists to cross centre in managed way well nigh impossible. They must
not cycle on pavements and knock one down at the top of Baldwin st which is what happens
now
I feel that Cyclists are now a rule unto themselves, because of the Councils pro active
attitude towards them, take for instance Coronation Road (Temple Meads to Bedminster
Bridge) each time 4X a week I walk it I see cyclists still using the main road, thereby holding
up traffic by there presence. The new Cycle Lane on Easton way, tonight I have seen 2
cyclists still using the marked cycle lane on the main road, WHY WAS THIS NOT REMOVED
I currently feel inhibited to cycle amongst lots of traffic, particularly in the area focused on in
this consultation. Clearer cycle routes would encourage me to get out on my bike more.
encourage or force commuters to park outside city centre, close central streets in old city to
commuter traffic
Prince Street bridge should not re-open for private/commercial vehicles. Should be for
public transport only.
This strategy has to keep Bristol prosperous to pay for improvements, idealistic policies to
"shape behaviour" will strange growth (and are orwellian)
Linking up Queen Square with the Harbourside and centre plaza and on to the cycle path up
to College Green is vital, as its a mess right now. the entry to (and exit from) the College
Green path from St Augustine's Parade and connecting to Denmark St is unusable at present
and causes unnecessary conflicts.
Creating a segregated area may cause greater conflict with other users unless there is clear
and visible signage for all.
Prioritising other uses over private vehicles causie frustration and inconvenience to those
working within the city who do not have access to effective public transport or who are
unable to cycle/ walk from home to work. There should be greater recognition that it is the
attitude of various road users that causes issues and the emphasis should be on changing
those attitudes rather than segregating each use to the detriment of the whole.
Clearer cycle routes can tend encourage faster cycling and a feeling of entitlement in cyclists
that may increase conflict with pedestrians who stray into the cycle routes.
I strongly believe that cyclists should use the road and not the pavement or shared use
space - the vast majority or motorists are better behaved than many cyclists who cycle at
speed in areas where there are pedestrians and children.
I am a cycle commuter covering some 100 miles per week in Bristol almost all of which is on
the roads.
Do not close the City Centre to local through traffic as we live in the City Centre.
Already cycle extensively.
I would prefer good integration rather than separation but this is a less safe option for the
masses.
Education of everyone who uses public areas would be useful.
Well designed cycle routes are needed to reduce the number of incidents leading to injury to
cyclists, this is particularly the case at busy junctions such as Gloucester Road/Zetland
Road/Cheltenham Road.
Too old to start cycling again!
But not at the expenses of pedestrians rights.
A few specific comments from the Architecture Centre, 16 Narrow Quay
-
We very much welcome the proposals
Would like clarification about the managed vehicular access to Narrow Quay – we do
have deliveries etc. especially around the time of new exhibitions - we assume this
means bollards that we would have a key to. We will need to ensure we have
sufficient keys for tenants and it would be good to understand the practicalities of
how this will work
- It would be good to have clarification about the pavements in Narrow Quay – we are
not clear if the scheme will replacing the tarmac outside the 'gap sit'e, and/or the
damaged (unsafe) pavements outside Architecture Centre. It would be very good if
this could happen but appreciate might be out of scope.
29. Agree with these statements. Current lack of consistency in cycle routes
30. Wide roads can accommodate cycle traffic within mandatory/advisory cycle lanes; two-way
segregated off-carriageway facilities introduces risk for user access/egress when not with
flow of traffic; off-carriageway route doesn't seem to facilitate cycle traffic from Prince St
turning right onto The Grove; bollards can be hazardous for handlebars; Prince St bridge has
is temporarily closed to motor traffic while works are undertaken - this could be trialled via a
temporary prohibition once the bridge is back in place, freeing up more space for pedestrian
and cycle traffic;
2 How important are the following issues? Rate from 1-5 (1 least important, 5 most important)
Reducing conflict between people cycling and
walking on The Centre and Broad Quay.
Reducing unauthorised car parking along the historic
quay side of Narrow Quay.
Improving the walking and cycling link from Queen
Square to Broad Quay
Pedestrianising Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay
Creating a more accessible (smooth) route along
Narrow Quay and the front of the Arnolfini
5
Making clearer routes for people walking and cycling
4
3
Upgrading the quality of the public realm along
Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay.
2
1
Preventing people cycling in front of M Shed to
reduce the risk of injury on the railway lines and
create a more relaxed walking environment.
Improving walking and cycling provision across
Prince Street bridge
Creating a shared space on Farrs Lane
Creating a high quality cycle network through the
city Centre
Making a better crossing for people walking and
cycling at Wapping Road/Cumberland Road
roundabout
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
18 comments on these questions
1. The new entrance to the Wapping Wharf development will not be as shown on your map. It
will be closer to Point 1. So I suggest that you re-design your map to take account of this. It is
vitally important that a pedestrian route is retained around the J S Fry building (opposite the
Louisiana pub). I would never use the newly-created Gaol Ferry Steps to reach my home in
Wapping Road from the Cumberland Road direction. If necessary, I would walk in the road or
the cycle way. Both highly dangerous to me.
2. Please consider banning cars from Prince St Bridge.
3. As it is, Prince Street Bridge is too dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. The pavements are
too narrow, so pedestrians regularly walk on the cycling section. Furthermore, cyclists have
to cut across a lane of traffic to access the cycling section. Dangerous. Why cars need to use
this route is beyond me. It should be for cyclists and pedestrians only. By building better
cycling infrastructure, more people will be encouraged to use their bicycles. We need to
reduce the number of car movements in the city centre.
4. Remember those people who have physical disabilities and their needs for access
5. "Creating a more accessible (smooth) route along Narrow Quay and the front of the
Arnolfini". The route is Cobble Stones that you refer to (I think) are part of the heritage of
Bristol, justas King Street and the 'old building' are around the City
6. keep the kerb on the pronce street bridge. the plans appear to put the cyclists first when
they are in the minority.
Cars must be facilitated. It will cause chaos to the traffic congestion otherwise.
A high quality cycle route must not be to the disadvantage of the pedestrian who is here to
shop and enjoy the area not wanting to be knocked down or be made to jump by cyclists
who just want to go from A to B without getting off. Cyclists do not know how intimidating
they are to older people who get confused as to where to look to cross the road
7. A smoother route along Narrow Quay, is not a priority as the cobble stones are part of
Bristol's Heritage. Farrs lane is a very short 'Lane' and "upgrading it" means destroying our
City's Heritage - why not pull down the Theatre Royal, after all it does not meet current
Building standards and regulations and Tarmac all of King Street. If Heritage means so little but a 'smooth' ride means so much for a few lycra clad nuts.
8. At Gaol Ferry Steps shops clearer cycling & pedestrian signs. Behind the M shed cycle path
clear signage and really importantly where this cycle path meets Wapping Road and you
bear left to go over Prince St bridge traffic calming measures for cars driving into behind M
Shed.
I've witnessed many potential accidents at this junction for pedestrians and cyclists by cars
driving too fast on the turn. Pedestrian crossing here would be good as its a blind corner for
cars and cyclists.
9. Close Prince St Bridge to cars, at least in one direction, close Farr's Lane to motor traffic
except delivery vehicles, re-direct metro bus along Baldwin St and Victoria St to Temple
Meads, limit motor traffic along the Grove, Prince St, Mary Redcliffe roundabout.
Instal segregated cycle lanes, no mixed use with pedestrians, give way junctions and traffic
lights where appropriate, it's easier and safer for pedestrians and cyclists to travel, but
harder for cars
10. Effectively banning cycling in front of Mshed seems an over-reaction, and loss of a pleasant
route for harbourside cycling.
11. There is already a high quality cycle network across the city centre - it is the main road
network and if the surface were improved it would also be much safer.
12. I prefer to cycling on The Grove to Queen Square. Allowing bikes to turn right onto The
Grove would reduce conflict with pedestrians on Queen Square.
13. M Shed cycling restriction is encouraging a Nanny State.
14. Improve holistically. All need improving, yet factor in the most used routes first, not just for
the people who work within Bristol but those visiting
15. Prince Street bridge should be kept for pedestrians and cyclists only, not motorised vehicles.
16. More overall needs to be done to create pedestrian priority across city centre. Pedestrian
crossings required on Commerical Road. Princes Street near to Bridge has high potential as a
car free area, opening up the harbour in this area. Also crossing harbour by foot/cycle is
limited
17. We do not feel that it is necessary to pedestrianise Farrs Lane. It currently feels like a
pedestrianised area and what is needed is better urban design to show that motorists,
pedestrians and cyclists can share the area.
Whilst we support measures to reduce unauthorised car parking we think it is vital there are
authorised 'loading bays' for businesses on Narrow Quay to ensure access for deliveries. We
would not advocate authorised parking for staff or visitors.
18. Re: Improving the walking and cycling link from Queen Square to Broad Quay in relation to
pedestrians crossing between Queens Square and Farrs lane across Prince St. The cycle lane
creates a potentially dangerous crossing for pedestrians and cyclists should come under the
same control via the pedestrian crossing for vehicles.
3
Rate how much you support these plans for Broad Quay from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
17 comments on Broad Quay works
1
2
3
4
By delineated, I assume you mean painted lines? A new surfaced route in tarmac is
preferable where possible. Use tarmac over paving slabs, its a much better surface.
My comments relate to this scheme in the broader context of the MetroBus work, which risk
making the environment for walking & cycling worse than it is at present.
Better signage would reduce the impact of cyclists moving at speed (and silently) around
pedestrians.
Overall very good but one really disastrous mistake: the repeat of the awful narrowing of the
road to introduce a pedestrian crossing, resulting in one-way, shuttle working of buses.
Delays buses, creates congestion which increases the risk to those 'informally' crossing (as
most do at the moment) - surely BCC public transport team must object to creating even
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
more pointless narrowing in order to introduce pedestrian crossings at this point? Ped
crossings yes, narrowing no.
all this rubbish about what stone to use, just build the cycle lane out of tarmac with white
lines so its clear what it is. Idiots will still walk on it but a least we can ring our bells to warn
them
The cycle path needs to be set at a different level to the pavement to make people more
aware of it and to discourage pedestrians from walking in it.
I would like to see a completely segregated path, but if this is not possible then it is essential
that people are made more aware than at present that the area has a cycle route through it,
but not segregated. It is also essential to train cyclists as to where they can cycle.
Impossible to read on my screen, which is a 15" x 12"
I think it will cause chaos to cars
Looks like no plan for cyclists getting on or off Prince St bridge
re route metro bus along Baldwin St and Victoria St
Looks good. How will people join this from Queens Square exit onto Prince St?
Need to consider cyclists travelling from queens square towards park street - what route is
there for them?
Excellent idea
There is no Public Mandate for what essentially is are proposals for a Car Free City Centre.
Agree, but attention needed for the bridge to reduce car conflict. Make bridge walking and
cycling only.
How would cyclists cross the floating harbour if they were coming from the other direction
(Baldwin St) ?
Rate how much you support these plans for MetroBus Stop from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
12 comments on MetroBus stop
1 Use splayed curb, not bullnose!
2 Floating bus stop a very positive development. Plenty of footway space here with relatively
low footfall. I would request that half height kerbs are installed. I am concerned as last week
i saw a partially sighted gentleman with a white cane straying between footway and
cycleway on Baldwin St due to there being no height differential.
3 If its designed like the one in Old Market, I can see people being knocked down
4 As long as there is a barrier between the bus stop and the cycle way to ensure safety of
pedestrians and bus users
5 Impossible to read on my screen, which is a 15" x 12"
6 need to understand metrobus stops better and where they go and where you can get off
7 Concerned with extra rush hour traffic with added Metro bus
8 Metro bus will add to congestion on Prince St, already massive queues in rush hours.
9 putting cycle routes behind bus stops is foolish - people walking quickly to catch an arriving
bus will not expect cyclists crossing the pavement
10 I believe there are considerable risks of conflict between pedestrians moving to use
Metrobus and cyclists. The incidents I have witnessed on Baldwin Street suggest this type of
arrangement presents significant issues for pedestrians.
11 First Bus is a privately owned service - we need to take the transport for an Avon Wide
service back into public hands.
12 Conflict will occur
Rate how much you support these plans for Farrs Lane from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
It is vital to use high quality materials. To change something which is high profile and yet scrimp
on quality materials is a false economy. This is the centre of the city we're talking about. It's
important to create a good impression.
2
Positive, but i would be against a 'gold plated' design here - I don't believe this is likely to be a
major cycle route compared with Gaol Ferry Bridge - Centre. Cycle versus pedestrian areas need
strong demarcation from each other.
3 Should have been done years ago
4 It would be good to improve the surface for all with physical disabilities and access issues
5 The Lane and the Quay are part of the History of the area.
6 This is only acceptable if it does not undermine local businesses
7 Not clear if this is a route for cycling or not from the plans? It must be given the link to Pero's
bridge
8 Upgrade with quality materials - the high quality ones such as already used elsewhere do not
seem to be any more resilient to damage over time.
9 It is inevitable that cyclists will continue to use Farrs Lane to get to AtBristol
10 But if you cannot get hotels bins off the highway all is waated !
11 I am in favour of Pedestrianising Farrs lane but I think there are a lot of issues that have not ben
addressed.
1)The hotel receives approximately 10 deliveries a day, the expectation under the new proposals
would have all our delivery drivers parking on a bay in the middle of prince street and crossing a
metro bus lane and cycle lanes with deliveries - I just think it is so dangerous for both the drivers
and the cyclists, we received 26 kegs yesterday as an example, these would need to be taken
across the lanes and potentially have to be done a second time should Farrs lane get cycle lanes there will be accidents from this. All the other units receive deliveries also which will need to be
the same and a risk assessment produced on this which enables our business and suppliers to
continue safely.
2) we currently store our bins on Farrs lane - all our deliveries and storage areas are on that side
of the building, regardless of future sprucing up the street, these bins have no where to go - no
one has discussed this with us.
3) There is a suggestion one could get deliveries through the back of the hotel along narrow
quay, but this is not correct as the space tightens where our glass restaurant come out from the
building, one cant expect paying customers in a glass restaurant to abide by having delivery
vehicles pass through while eating breakfast or Dinner - It would destroy our restaurant trade.
I believe it is being overlooked at how busy prince street will be come with the cycle lanes open,
Prince street Bridge open and continued office moving into the area (since Prince street bridge
closed we now have Veale Wasbrough Visards, Fraser Nash and KPMG who have all moved large
offices to the area, the road plan to segregate out the lines of traffic on this is sensible, I am not
sure putting a loading bay in the middle of it is.
12 As a specialist public consultation business located at The Architecture Centre it is essential to
our operations that we have access to our building for deliveries 24/7. We store large bulky
items which need to be shipped in and out of the office to support public consultations. It is not
clear how this can be maintained as part of the current proposals or how access would be
explained to our suppliers.
If access were to be provided from the north (i.e. Assembly Rooms Lane) there will be a
significant conflict between vehicles accessing 16 Narrow Quay at the point where Narrow Quay
passes Farrs Lane. It is also unclear how access would be gained. We would have significant
concerns if access were to be bollarded or via manual barrier as this would put an undue burden
on our suppliers and operations.
We would therefore prefer Farrs Lane to be maintained as a vehicle access. We would suggest
that an alternative is to create a shared used space such as the home zone at Howard Road
leading to Stackpool Road in Southville where urban design has been used to give motorists,
cyclists and pedestrians equal access.
If the pedestrianisation were to happen it would be essential that we discuss access
arrangements with the City Council.
13 not sure of balance pros/cons on all movements here with respect to proposals
Rate how much you support these plans for Arnolfini from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
18 comments on the Arnolfini works
1 For Wapping Road, since there isn’t a comment box for this bit (?), just get rid of the roundabout
and the double width/two vehicle lane carriageway widths leading up to it – cars don’t need this
much space (and yes I say this as a driver – who also cycles and walks a lot) and turn it into a
simple T junction with pedestrian/cycle priority. This will then allow the segregated cycle route
to continue/link up properly with the cycle route on Clarence Road, making it a meaningful and
useful cycle route. The only reason there’s a pinch point, where cyclists and pedestrians will
once again be in conflict and cyclists will have to dismount, is because the council is too afraid to
reduce the vehicle carriageway width just in case a couple of motorists might get a bit upset.
2
3
4
The Prince Street bridge should be closed to vehicular traffic permanently.
Over the last couple of years there has been an increase in the number of vehicles parking
outside the Anolfini on the Prince Street side of the road. It makes negotiating with other
pedestrians, cyclists, pushchairs, wheelchairs, etc., much more hazardous.
I would strongly urge the council to consider NOT returning Prince St Bridge to general traffic.
Fully pedestrianising this area would allow Arnolfini to have a direct walking link to Temple
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Meads and could create a fantastic outdoor space that would attract tourism, pavement cafes,
etc.
If this idea is unfortunatley dismissed, at least ensure strong segregation across the harbourside
area to avoid pedestrian conflicts with cycles. Also on Wapping Road - what are southbound
cycles supposed to do at the end of the cycleway? Do you really expect them to dismount and
cross the road on foot to continue their journey? In reality they are almost certain to continue
on the footway if travelling to Gaol Ferry Bridge, annoying heavy ped flows on the narrow
pavement on Cumberland Rd.
If overall budget does not stretch, I'm not sure ALL setts in whole area need relaying / resetting this must be V expensive. Additional seating etc in this area is a good idea as it's very well used
at certain times. Is there a way of encouraging this area for use as an event space?
It would be good to improve the surface for all with physical disabilities and access issues
6 The 'sets' (Cobble Stones) that are along side the Arnolfini are part of Bristol Heritage and
should NOT moved or replaced
As a 'Disabled Pedestrian' I have no problem with the 'sets' the only problem is the stupid gaps
and differing heights between the 'Yorkshire Flags' that replaced the sets with the railway lines
in front of the Watershed and Tourist Information
I am not sure you need to smooth out the path.
Good plan
How do southbound cyclists get from the new cycle path to the east side of Prince St Bridge? Or
do they cycle south along the west side of the bridge?
Cut sets are dangerous for cyclists (slippery when wet ) and degrade the urban environment
Good idea
This seems a hugely expensive project for the limited gain. Unauthorised parking vcan be
achieved by the simple expedient of enforcement as is done elsewhere in the city.
Keep the route in front of the Anolfin1 free for Blue Badge users and Pinces Bridge retain car
usage
Increase width of walkable surface directly next to Arnolfini to say 2.5m. Other setted areas to
have major dips and defects sorted out bt please no more erasing of history and character by
sawing in half and relaying.
Yes but how do you keep cyclists off pedestrian routes?
Uneven route creates slow environment
It does not appear from the plans that access arrangements for vehicles around the Arnolfini is
sufficient. There seems to be a very sharp turn for vehicles to access the area using the barrier
off Prince Street and there could be a conflict with the proposed cycleway. Please consider that
deliveries are often made in large vehicles and we need to retain access for the emergency
services.
Note: We are concerned that the consultation has been designed in such a way that we are not
able to comment on some key issues (such as the funding and also the following two sections) as
there are no comments boxes. There is also no 'catch all' comments box which limits general
comment about the consultation and it is difficult to respond as a business as this has not been
considered in the demographics section or references in the questions.
east/west pedestrian movements may involve detour and additional conflict introduced via
parallel cycle lane; southbound cycles not safely accommodated interface on-carriageway/cycle
track; bollards hazardous
Rate how much you support these plans for Princes Wharf from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Rate how much you support these plans for Wapping Road from 1-5 (1 lowest, 5 highest)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
How important is it to seek additional funding to enable the whole of the Centre to be upgraded
to high quality paving as part of the CAF project
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
How important is it seek future funding to make Farrs Lane and the front of the Arnolfini more
attractive and accessible
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Who responded to the onine survey?
Most of the respondents regularly use the area, with 48% visiting every day and 39% every week.
The majority (67%) were Bristol residents or local employees (18%). The majority of the respondents
were cyclists (48%) or pedestrians (32%) with only 14% driving. Most were not disabled (75%).
84% were aged 18-65 and predominantly white British (70%). The majority had no religious belief
(64%); were male (68%); heterosexual (71%) and not transgender (84%)
2. Individual comments
1. As a resident living in the vicinity of princes Street I am objecting to the proposal on the
grounds that it will favour cyclists, many of whom do NOT live in the area and cycle to work.
For the rest of us, using our cars, it will make life yet more intolerable. It already takes me
sometimes an hour and a half to travel from Horfield back into the city centre and a whole
hour to get from Baldwin Street to Welshback where I live.
This policy is definitely ageist as I am not able to use a bicycle and depend heavily on my car
due to hip problems.
The trouble with cyclists, who do not pay any road tax by the way, is that they have become
almost religious in their obsession with the bicycle. Did we not progress from the bicycle to
the car?
For long journeys now I take the train and I bet many of the cyclist who want this scheme
use their cars to travel rather than the train
Cyclists are far more dangerous to pedestrians than cars. At least we know where the cars
are whilst a cyclist can come up from behind with hardly any warning at high speed.
If the council had not voted against the tram system there would be no need for this kind of
discussion.
More cycle tracks will only make the traffic situation worse not better. You cannot force
people to use bicycles. the very idea is stupid.
I am therefore totally opposed to any scheme which further encourages cyclists above
drivers.
2. I just wanted to quickly write with 1 small piece of feedback on the proposed The Prince
Street Cycling Ambition Fund (CAF) project. I appreciate that the formal feedback period has
now closed but I have only just learned about the project via an article on Bristol 24/7. I
think the proposal is a fantastic idea and ideal solution to the currently very poor & unsafe
cycle route along Prince Street. My only request would be that all segregated cycle lanes are
painted a different colour to the pavement. This is essential to having a segregated lane that
actually works as otherwise pedestrians do not pay attention to it and regularly use cycle
paths as footpaths (as happens all the time on the Baldwin St path). Please can all
segregated lanes be painted a distinct colour from the pavement - red or even blue would be
better than slightly different shades of black/grey.
3.
Bristol Walking Alliance comments on Prince Street cycle route consultation
1) The Centre and Broad Quay – changes in layout
We recognise that this is one of the most difficult areas in Bristol to accommodate both walkers and
cyclists, because there are high volumes of both walkers and cyclists, going in different directions,
with some lingering, and there is no simple alternative route for cyclists.
We support:
•
•
•
•
the creation of more space by removing the podium steps and ramp, as this will
help to reduce conflicts.
the new pedestrian controlled crossing at the centre of Broad Quay, which helps
to keep separate the paths taken by pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Centre
from Anchor Road.
greater clarity on the route to be taken by cyclists
the single stage crossing from Thunderbolt Square to Broad Quay.
2) The Centre and Broad Quay - legibility
The Centre is an area where there are more walkers and cyclists. We accept that neither walkers nor
cyclists will consistently adhere to any delineation of space, and we acknowledge the attempt to
make the route more legible by using small rectangular block pavers and granite edging to contrast
with the surrounding larger square York stone pavers, and dotted lines along the cycle path. Those
things will make the route more legible than (for instance) the newly relaid route opposite the
Hippodrome.
However, it may not be legible enough. It is felt that what is proposed is not enough for good
legibility without greater differentiation. eg by colour. There should be a way of using greater
colour differentiation, whilst taking into account the character of this important area of city centre
public realm.
3) Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay.
We support the pedestrianisation of Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay, and the use of high quality
materials to improve the walking environment. We support the use of areas of cut setts to create a
smoother pedestrian route to the Arnolfini, and we support a bid for funding to extend this round
the corner of the Arnolfini, and to make the water frontage more accessible.
Recognising the importance of the Brunel Mile as a walking and cycling route, we suggest for the
crossing of Prince Street connecting Farrs Lane to Queen Square:
-
it should be raised
it should be the same width as Farrs Lane and the passage on the other side of the
road
it should have user priority over the Prince Street cycle route
4) Prince Street – impact on walking experience
The two-way cycle lane goes down the middle of the pavement, and in some places leaves
inadequate width for walkers. A better walking experience would be provided if the cycle route
was next to the road. This may matter less on Prince Street than in other places as walkers have the
alternative, more pleasant, option of walking along Narrow Quay, but the general principle still
applies.
We understand that the design of the ‘floating’ bus stop has been approved by those representing
the visually impaired, on the basis that a railing is added to prevent accidental straying into the cycle
route.
5) Prince Street bridge
BWA’s view is that the current (pre-works) provision for pedestrians on the bridge is inadequate.
Given the high volume of pedestrians, a lane should not be shared between walkers and cyclists.
The whole of one side of the bridge should be only for pedestrians, wheelchairs, mobility vehicles,
and people pushing bikes.
6) Sawn setts at the Arnolfini
We support the making of a smooth path to the Arnolfini entrance for wheelchair users. As for the
proposed use of sawn setts to provide a leisure route for cyclists and access to the waterfront for
wheelchair users, we suggest testing to see whether relaid setts (as done recently on Lodge Street)
would be acceptable instead, since that would retain more of the character.
7) Wapping Road/Cumberland Road roundabout.
We support any proposal that improves the walking experience on the corner alongside the Gaol
walls, and makes a better crossing for people walking at Wapping Road/Cumberland Road
roundabout. This is a major route for people coming across Gaol Ferry Bridge, although they do now
have the pleasant alternative of going via Gaol Ferry Steps and Prince’s Wharf. The consultation
document proposes “Create a shared surface at the
pinch point around retained Gaol wall”, but no details are given. The pavement at this point on
Cumberland Road is narrow, and the Metrobus plans do not seem to be improving this, so we
question whether a shared surface is appropriate. Better would be a crossing for cyclists across to
the cycle route on the south side of Cumberland Road, but again Metrobus does not deliver this.
It is important to make the cycling route between Gaol Ferry Bridge and Wapping Road attractive for
faster ‘A to B’ cyclists, so that they do not use the new route down the ramp at Gaol Ferry Steps,
which is appropriate for slower cyclists only. Unfortunately, whilst the Metrobus scheme will deliver
a better cycle route along the pavement east of Gaol Ferry Bridge on the south side of Cumberland
Road, it does not appear to deliver a crossing at the mini-roundabout between that route and
Wapping Road.
7) The good behaviour message
In our comments on the council’s draft shared use policy, we suggest that the council should
implement “Respect other users” (or similar) signage at key places. The Centre and Prince Street
bridge are two such places.
4. Bristol Disability Equality Forum






In principle would prefer segregated routes everywhere so no sharing with cyclists
There should be greater height difference between people walking and cycling. Would
prefer full height kerbs.
Cycle paths need to be very clear with different materials etc
There must be areas where only pedestrians are allowed
BCC needs to enforce against people cycling on footways
There should be funding for improving the walking environment not just for cycling.