Our response to the Bradford Street cycle lane consultation

Filed under: Consultation / Cycle Lane Proposal

BSfB response to the Bradford Street Cycle Lane consultation

General points

Better Streets will always approve of improvements to the city’s cycle network. We believe a high-quality cycle network is the quickest and cheapest way to significantly improve so many aspects of the city. London and Paris have shown how quickly you can change a city for the better.

However, it has to be a good quality network, otherwise people will not use it and we will not achieve the modal shift in transportation that this city is crying out for. We will, therefore, continue to raise any issues with proposed designs that we feel will not provide the quality required.

We welcome the pop-up lane being made permanent, especially given the fate of the as-yet-unreplaced pop-up lane on the A47.

Quality improvements

Making the cycle lane permanent will undoubtedly improve its quality. There have been significant issues with drainage, and whilst we don’t have a problem with bus stop bypasses in general, we found the swift change in verticality of the mini zebra crossing humps unpleasant to cycle over.

Parking changes

We also welcome the removal of large sections of existing on-street parking. If parking is absolutely necessary in the area, as some parking is suggested to be replaced, would it not be better to move it to side streets to the south of Bradford Street?

Junction improvements

As advocates for squaring off junctions, we approve of the kerb build-out on the exit of the one-way section of Alcester Street. We would like to see the same treatment applied to the junctions with the one-way sections of Birchall Street and Rea Street (the section south of Bradford Street).

Cycle lane width

The proposed lane is 1.5 metres in some sections, which seems narrow for a cycle lane. We do not expect that there will be enough space for overtaking slower cyclists. In section two, this is where the proposed parking bays become a problem, as removing them would allow the city-bound cycle lane to be wider than the 1.5m proposed.

Rea Street junction

With Rea Street marked as a north-south cycle route in the recent Cheapside scheme, the removal of the traffic lights at the Rea Street junction is problematic. With Bradford Street now being the only open route to the car parks at the Bullring and Moor Street, there will be an increase in traffic on it.

Whilst we’re not fans of northbound cyclists having to turn right to wait to continue north onto Rea Street, we really do not like southbound cyclists having to wait for the nearby pedestrian crossing to go red, and then rely on drivers letting them cross Bradford Street.

It is our view that the whole junction should remain traffic light-controlled.

Alcester Street junction

This is the one junction that allows people to drive from Digbeth onto Bradford Street. The removal of traffic lights from this junction potentially makes this dangerous for cyclists.

While there is a nearby traffic light crossing proposed, there appears to be no way for northbound cyclists to reach it, so they will have to contend with traffic on Bradford Street driving towards Alcester Street and traffic turning out of Alcester Street onto Bradford Street. Requiring southbound cyclists to divert to use the new crossing seems less than ideal.

Again, our view is that the junction should remain traffic light-controlled.

Potential for speeding

The removal of all the current junction-controlling traffic lights will result in an increase in speeding. This scheme should implement a 20mph speed limit to make it consistent with adjacent streets.

We also wonder if the road would benefit from more design elements to make it harder to speed, such as removing the centre line or building traffic islands with ‘keep left’ bollards.

Connecting to the A45 cycle lane

The connection to the A45 cycle lane is unacceptable and we raised this in the recent A45 cycleway consultation. Requiring people cycling from the centre of town to have to divert down Bradford Street goes against one of the principles of LTN 1/20, namely of providing cycle routes that are as direct as possible. Funding should be identified to address how Bradford Street and Bolton Road connect urgently so that the A45 route’s potential can be fully realised.

The scheme adds insult to injury by not providing a cycle crossing on Camp Hill, instead instructing cyclists to dismount and use the existing pedestrian crossing.

Whilst it is outside the scope of this consultation, it is still our view that the main cycle lane in this area cycle lane should be built on Digbeth. Not only because Digbeth is a cycling destination in and of itself, but because it would be a much more direct route between the A45 and the city centre.

Connecting to the city centre

This scheme’s connection to the city centre is dependent on the Smithfield development. This means that this lane does not connect to the city centre, and will not for a significant number of years to come. To us this further underlines that the lower-traffic Digbeth should be the main cycle route in the area.

The 50 bus route

The 50 should be rerouted through Digbeth’s bus gates and would remove the need for any bus stops on Bradford Street, and therefore the additional cost of bus stop bypasses for the cycle lane.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding our view that this cycle lane is on the wrong road, this is a better design than we’ve seen proposed in Birmingham in recent years. We support building it and have identified improvements that we expect to be within the scope and budget of this scheme.

We would also remark that given the need for a re-consultation in what has been a protracted design process, we hope that lessons have been learned and schemes will not be stuck in limbo for such a long period in the future.