Plans for a cycle lane and a floating bus stop have been scrapped by the council after businesses in the Paisley town centre staged a sustained protest, warning of a “catastrophic” effect to livelihoods if the cycling infrastructure was allowed to be built.
The proposals in Paisley were mainly focused for the Causeyside Street and supposed to include a two-way protected cycle route between Canal Street and Gilmour Street train stations, linking to National Cycle Route 7, with floating bus stops, along with resurfacing footways and junction alterations to increase safety while walking.
These schemes, which according to the Renfrewshire Council underwent thorough engagement, have been stonewalled indefinitely after sustained pressure by a business consortium called Paisley First, along with Paisley West and Central Community Council.
These groups had accused the council’s engagement procedure as flawed and that it failed to follow regulatory guidelines and advices.
The chair of Paisley First said: “Given there is no evidence of demand for cycling, specifically between the two railway stations, as well as the project team’s admission that Sustrans is aware of the project, but not directly involved, we maintain our firm belief that this project cannot and must not be allowed to proceed.”
> New protected bike lanes will benefit both cyclists and businesses, Camden Council says
One of the shop-owners from Causeyside Street said that they “will do whatever it takes to keep fighting these proposals”, while another claimed that “no evidence of any economic benefit to the local community” had been provided by the council.
Another business feared that the changes will discourage people from visiting Paisley altogether, adding: “This is not about being against cyclists, it’s about making sure Causeyside Street is safe for everyone. I do wonder if the planners and councillors realise or actually care about the devastating effect this will have on the businesses that attract people to the area.”
Following the resistance, Glasgow Times reports that the council has been forced to back down on its decision. The chair of Paisley First reaced saying: “We are thrilled that common sense has prevailed and Renfrewshire Council will no longer be proceeding with a segregated cycle route along Causeyside Street.”
Councillor Kenny MacLaren, SNP rep for Paisley Northwest, said that he’s attended a number of meetings about this proposal and hadn’t heard “one person speak positively about it”, while Councillor Will Mylet, SNP rep for Paisley East and Central, said that it was the “right decision”.
> Controversial cycle lane roadworks blamed for “killing Christmas trade”
A Renfrewshire Council spokesperson said: “The Causeyside Street regeneration proposals are designed to enhance walking, cycling and public transport connections for residents, businesses and visitors on Causeyside Street, as well as improve parking and traffic flow.
“As part of our extensive engagement process, we have been liaising with the community, elected members and businesses throughout to ensure the plans would work for the town centre and after listening to their feedback, we are proposing not to take forward the current planned cycle lane at this time.
“We will be continuing our engagement on Causeyside Street, in particular the junction with Gordon Street, as part of future plans to improve traffic flow in the area and the local community will be involved as always in future planning.”

40 thoughts on “Cycle lane plans dropped by council as it would have “killed off shops””
But.. Where will the delivery
But.. Where will the delivery vans park now?
Wardy74 wrote:
Surely they’d just park across the cycle lane, same as in other towns? #illonlybeaminute
Are they mad? In Glasgow
Are they mad? In Glasgow Southside Victoria Road had cycle lanes installed, the shopkeepers on Shawlands High Street about a mile a way fought to make sure they weren’t installed. Guess which one has the more vibrant small shop/cafe culture?
Yep, coz all cyclists care
Yep, coz all cyclists care about is Strava times and they never actually buy anything, oh!
“This is not about being
“This is not about being against cyclists, it’s about making sure Causeyside Street is safe for everyone. I do wonder if the planners and councillors realise or actually care about the devastating effect this will have on the businesses that attract people to the area.”
Sure, make the flawed argument that people wouldn’t visit shops by bicycle, but don’t have the cheek to claim it’s about safety.
Well in Belgium they tried to
Well in Belgium they tried to copy The Netherlands and look what happened to the high streets there.
TBH it looks like it would
TBH it looks like it would have been great. (UK though so no telling what we’d have ended up with). I think after a period of adjustment it would be great for businesses, just like it has been everywhere. But of course very few of them believe that. It’ll be a while until we have the confidence of the chap at the end of this article about a street being closed to all cars – who said that customers had found his shop during Covid so there’s no reason why they wouldn’t now.
Would this have been part of an actual network though? Or another example of “outstanding (for the UK) infra” which then doesn’t maintain the quality elsewhere e.g. exists in isolation, connects to nothing? Would it give up at every side street like normal UK infra? What about junctions?
What are the current cycling figures there? Build it good enough and some will come. However it always helps ease nerves if shopkeepers can see infra in use outside their store immediately.
The proposal would have taken
The proposal would have taken you safely through the town and link in with cycle way behind Gilmour Street Station which links the new infra at the Airport and the bridge that Gavin Newman was on about. This in turn joins new infra that takes you to just outside Bishopton. Reversing it gets you from tGilmour Street and onto the NCR. If it had have gone ahead it would have made the entire environment much better for all.
giff77 wrote:
Ah – that explains it then. It’s a victory for the miserablists. That and the business folks with their “Given there is no evidence of demand for cycling, specifically between the two railway stations…” – I mean, that’s why we don’t have the A9, because there’s no evidence of demand for people who want to drive from Falkirk to Thurso.
Sorry about this one then – sounds like a real “missing link”.
Admittedly the route from
Admittedly the route from Gilmour Street to the airport needs some work to improve it but there is talk of developing a traffic free route to make the link more viable.
Genuinely bizarre, Victoria
Genuinely bizarre, Victoria Road is buzzing due to the installation of the cycle lanes – I remember trying to recce a route into Paisley from Glasgow Southside to visit an exhibition. Within a minute of trying to navigate that road I was walking on the pavement. Absolute nightmare area.
aaronmccarthy wrote:
Causeyside is a horrible road to cycle.
I’ll be back when I’ve calmed
I’ll be back when I’ve calmed down and thinking a bit more rationally.
If you’re a cyclist then that
If you’re a cyclist then that’ll be never?
Very drole.
Very drole. I’m a human being who wants to get from a to b in relative safety by bicycle. The council has now removed this option from many cyclists in Paisley.
Presumably the issue is about
Presumably the issue is about parking spaces, as people driving their cars are notoriously tight fisted about spending money in the shops that they are driving past.
Parking is of course an issue, but it ain’t half frustrating that roadspace for stationary vehicles is considered priority over protected roadspace for people just trying to use an efficient means of personal urban transportation to get about in a less environmentally damaging way.
There’s two multi-storey car
There’s two multi-storey car parks, at least eight council car parks and plenty of on street parking. There are a few parking bays along Causeyside but these are always in use and not always by customers of the shops concerned.
Given that it seems to be a
Given that it seems to be a universal truth that where such cycle lanes are installed, businesses increase footfall and turnover, it is disappointing that the opposite argument appears to have won. Did the shopkeepers claiming that their businesses would be destroyed actually provide any evidence that this would happen?
“I do wonder if the planners and councillors realise or actually care about the devastating effect this will have on the businesses that attract people to the area.”
Except that all the evidence says that far from being devastated, the businesses would thrive, so just the normal, everyday anti-cycling, pro-driving stance of people who cannot cope with change, even if it is beneficial to them.
Everything shows that a car
Everything shows that a car culture actually favours out of town developments and is detrimental for city centre shopping.
Seems like shopkeepers are a species that will disappear of its own doing…
Cycle lanes also kill cycling
Cycle lanes also kill cycling. We are entitled to use the road, and should do so
Cycling is dead in Copenhagen
Well… aside from the fact that this was to be a cycle *path* – rather different.
(Cycle lanes in the UK – mostly useless, sadly not mostly harmless. )
But yeah, I mean cycling is dead in Copenhagen, in The Netherlands, in Belgium… I’ve never even heard of roadies from there.
Yeah, I think there was a
Yeah, I think there was a little bike race yesterday where the winners came from places with good bike infra. Probably just a one off though…
Are you by any chance worried
Are you by any chance worried about this?
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/25/we%E2%80%99ll-be-stuck-on-terrible-cycle-paths
We should never underestimate the huge self-reinforcing power of the motor industries or the self-serving nature of our rulers. Plenty of reasons why you don’t have much to worry about though.
A much simpler solution for
A much simpler solution for high streets is to enforce a 20mph limit, with heavy penalties. Drivers not allowed to overtake cyclists. Plenty of parking spaces including secure lock up facilities for cyclists. Drivers going slower can find spaces easier and their passengers might spot something in a shop window and request a stop. Cyclists no longer in danger of being mowed down at speed. Pedestrians can cross to shop on other side without being forced to walk to a controlled crossing point, reducing the ‘can’t be bothered to walk back to that shop I spotted’
BuT I CaNt DRiVE aT 20mPh …
BuT I CaNt DRiVE aT 20mPh …
Will be the resounding cry from the motoring community
Having lost their licence
Having lost their licence that would be gratifyingly true.
You might as well just walk
You might as well just walk and save yourself the wear of your joints turning that big cog round and round…..
Due to the high volumes of
Due to the high volumes of traffic on this stretch the avg speed is probably 7mph
“… as well as the project
“… as well as the project team’s admission that Sustrans is aware of the project, but not directly involved, we maintain our firm belief that this project cannot and must not be allowed to proceed.” what do these people think Sustrans do? Do thy think they’re a statuory body instead of the barely competent goup they actually are? I blame the government outsourcing funding admin to them for their inflated profile
We visit the amazing street
We visit the amazing street with real buzz that is the best part of Bath
OK, a long way from Paisley but…
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/whats-on/visit-amazing-street-real-buzz-8371184
Am I missing something but
Am I missing something but why are councils insistent on building 2 way paths on one side of the road that follow pedestrian routes and do not flow with traffic? If bicycles are vehicles then why not integrate them with regular traffic. It seems like token efforts to be ‘green’ without proper investment or thought.
It also baffles me that an constant argument made by shop owners is demanding that they need that one car space outside their shop that will contain one customer opposed to space to park a dozen bikes with a dozen customers.
Having experienced this in my
Having experienced this in my local high street (Byres Rd in Glasgow) most of the local business owners wanted a parking space outside their door for their own car.
My wife used to do community
My wife used to do community engagement and this was EXACTLY what she found up and down the country.
Benji326 wrote:
There’s a sharp climb at the end of Causeyside Street with a set of lights to facilitate a pedestrian crossing on the bend (used to be a major crossroads before pedestrianising two arms and creating a sharp right for through traffic) The two way cycle path would have allowed cyclists to leave and join Causeyside in relative safety as the dogleg is pretty messy at the best of times.
Bi-directional tracks should
Bi-directional tracks should be 3m, and one-way tracks would be 2x2m. There is therefore a space saving.
LTN 1/20 identifies opportunities and challenges of bi-directional tracks.
GOOD!
GOOD!
Refreshing to see a Council with some common sense.
Well, this certainly
Well, this certainly discourages me from ever visiting Paisley. What a dump.
Is this area an accident
Is this area an accident/incident/collision hotspot for cyclists? Is there any particular reason why cyclists need separation from other vehicles here?
I’m happy to see segregated cycle facilities where there is a benefit, but where there isn’t, it’s just a waste of taxpayer’s money. As cyclists we are vehicles and are entitled to use the roads.
Here in Malmö Sweden 20 years
Here in Malmö Sweden 20 years ago they simply closed several streets to all traffic creating pedestrian zones. The local businesses screamed about losing business. 1 year later after the changes, there was more business and it completely boomed in following years leading to more streets being made pedestrian.
TommyWW wrote:
I like to think that’s how it would work here, if local authorities had the bravery. Unfortunately the motor car is too strong with us. Certainly in the case of cycling infra after changes have been working quite successfully in some cases these measures are reversed (often reported here). It seems it’s not “most people” causing this but politicians. You wonder – is it because “me and my pals like to park there”, or because they’re seeing the money from the motor lobby, or they’ve seen a particular group they can make themselves appealing to (nervous business owners, people who don’t like “change”)?
Anyway – I hear that Malmö is more advanced than most of the UK. Not so far ahead that it’s unimaginable, unlike NL. Probably more than 20 years ahead though. Nice articles on the city and suburbs by the Ranty Highwayman and by BicycleDutch.