Solihull Council has announced plans to upgrade its main segregated cycle lane into the town centre to prevent delivery drivers blocking it.
The two-way cycle lane on Blossomfield Road was constructed in 2022 and replaced a narrow painted lane. It is 1.2 miles long and extends past three secondary schools and a college. Council data has shown an increase of 41 per cent in cycling along the road since its installation.
Besides wands – narrow bollards – the cycle lane is also segregated through several short so-called ‘orca kerbs’ made of rubber that deter vehicles from crossing the lane.
However, the kerbs used in Solihull are sparsely placed out, enabling vehicles to cross over into the cycle lane without hitting the attached bollard. The cycle lane is also intersected by so-called ‘floating bus stops’ along the route.
> Pensioner left with broken wrist and black eye after tripping over cycle lane separator
At a recent council meeting, Reform UK Cllr Samantha Gethen said “The orcas and wands are a bit dangerous – we have had residents fall over the orcas.
“Everyone I speak to says it looks unsightly so a kerb is the best option,” Gethen added, as reported by Birmingham Live’s Local Democracy Reporter.
Liberal Democrat councillor Kathryn Thomas added “I do know we haven’t won hearts and minds on this. A lot of it is the changes we have made to the bus stops – this strategy of now having buses stop in the road.”
But, defending the new infrastructure, Thomas added “people don’t understand even if they get rid of the cycle route you are still going to have the buses stopping in the road.
“It serves schools, the college – young people are more likely to cycle. If it saves the life of a child then it is worth it.”
At the meeting to discuss alternative arrangements, it was revealed that funding from central government and Transport for West Midlands – the region-wide public transport authority – would be available to replace the orcas with a permanent kerb fully segregating the cycle lane from the road traffic. The installation would cost £498,204 and would be installed by March 2027 pending resident consultation.
However, local residents reacted angrily on Facebook to the proposed investment, with more than 100 mostly negative commenters describing the decision as “a waste of taxpayer’s money” on a cycle lane they feel is rarely used.
“A 41% increase but what was the original number? 5 or even 10 maybe. Stats can be used whichever way they want. 100% of nothing is still nothing,” wrote Dee King.
“Wow in such difficult financial times surely nearly half a million pounds can be put to better use…” added Lucy Harris.
Solihull Cycling Club’s Racing Coordinator meanwhile chose to stir up the debate. “Scrap the cycle lane and make it 20mph with avg speed cameras 👍” David Fellows typed.
At the time of the lane’s initial installation the West Midlands’ then Cycling and Walking Commissioner, Adam Tranter, responded to criticism of the infrastructure by saying “In truth — experienced cyclists who are cycling faster speeds, are more confident or are riding in groups, may prefer to continue to use the road, which is their right and totally acceptable under the Highway Code.”
The council’s Conservative Cabinet member for Environment and Infrastructure, Cllr Ken Hawkins at the time defended the weaker infrastructure, saying it “ensured that [the road space] can be used flexibly in case of emergencies.”
However, in the council meeting on Monday, Hawkins said “With this funding we have never hidden from what we want – a proper segregated route with kerbing to give greater safety for active travel users.
Hawkins previously attracted attention in 2019 when he was invited to ride a cycle lane on the high street in nearby Shirley and discovered first-hand how poorly it had been signposted and maintained.
29 thoughts on ““If it saves the life of a child then it is worth it”: Cycle lane under fire over £500,000 “safety improvements”, but councillors defend scheme which has reportedly boosted bike use by 41%”
Like close passes and the
Like close passes and the like, it should be a simple case of reporting people with photographic or video evidence when they park over protected bike lanes and they get a fine.
should, yes, but as parking
should, yes, but as parking violations are a civil enforcement not criminal matter (i.e. a matter for councils, not police), there is currently no mechanism by which the public can provide evidence that would lead to a fine. It would require signficant change to make this happen.
In the meantime, I think we should take a leaf out of a friend’s book, who has absolutely no problem using the protruding hubs on their son’s wheelchair to scratch the side of cars which block pavements.
I believe people are making
I believe people are making USD$25 per fine (out of $175 fine to the vehicle owner IIRC) for reporting parking violations in NYC.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/12/09/civilian-enforcement-a-get-rich-quick-scheme-that-also-makes-the-city-safer
https://inshur.com/en-us/blog/new-bill-to-pay-new-yorkers-to-report-vehicles-parked-in-bike-lanes
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-bill-would-pay-people-to-report-drivers-parking-illegally/3899757/
Dee King wrote:
Someone needs to go back to remedial maths class. It’s highly unlikely there’s 0.1 of a cyclist using it somewhere.
mdavidford wrote:
Someone needs to go back to remedial maths class. It’s highly unlikely there’s 0.1 of a cyclist using it somewhere.— Dee King
The lowest integers I can find that work are a rise from 17 to 24.
andystow wrote:
I make that 23.97? 100 to 141 are the lowest whole numbers I can think of…
“An increase of 41%” I would
“An increase of 41%” I would take to mean e.g. going from 100 riders to 141. So how do you calculate the percent increase?
(new/old)-1, or the equivalent (new-old)/old.
24/17 ≈ 1.4117647…. which it’s perfectly acceptable to state as a 41% increase.
Other combinations that work:
31/22
38/27
45/32
Of course it’s acceptable, I
Of course it’s acceptable, I was just working on MDF’s point that you can’t have a fraction of a cyclist. Just meant as a wee joke, no criticism implied!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Isn’t this still being disputed some places (EAPC use contexts for example, or folks with flat bars), along with eg. whether they are a *true* Scotsman?
Rounding errors…
Rounding errors…
Personally, I agree with Mr
Personally, I agree with Mr Fellows. 20mph limit and average speed cameras. I hate cycling on segregated lanes that cross bus stops and usually covered with litter and dead slippery leaves at this time of year. I’m much more comfortable on the road, but when you ride next to a segregated lane there are angry drivers that think you are obliged to use them….
GDT1 wrote:
If you can posit 20mph zones on the main routes and average speed cameras installed on a significant proportion of those, I can invoke actual “fit for purpose” mobility infra! Stuff that isn’t just a cycle lane full of sludge and which doesn’t magically disappear at bus stops (hello Edinburgh on both counts).
Or give up on a mess of “cyclists use crossing” signs or “bike box” (ASL) rubbish at bigger junctions (often almost erased by wear from traffic, and/or occupied by motor vehicles).
Most people aren’t more
Most people aren’t more comfortable riding in traffic.
In the Netherlands and Denmark where they have dedicated cycle infrastructure, a far higher percentage of people cycle than in the UK. The proof of what works is already there.
Personally I’d agree with Mr
Personally I’d agree with Mr Fellows too, but I understand that the majority of folk (including those in their cars) are put off from cycling because they do not perceive it as safe, and thats the population that we need to be targeting in order to have any hope of addressing climate change. Practically most places where proper infrastructure has been installed (and not the historic failures of the past, painted murder strips etc) we have seen some evidence of a modal shift. So ultimately although less convenient for me, its the way we need to go.
HLaB wrote:
Agree that it’s hard to imagine in our lifetime…
However I think you might be over-pessimistic. I (and likely all current UK cyclists) certainly wouldn’t be in favour of any “can’t use the road then” measures *before* we get to Dutch quality and coverage. And … *without* that coverage and quality I don’t think we would see mass cycling. (As cycling has to be attractive, convenient and safe relative to eg. driving). And without more cyclists I guess nobody* would bother changing the rules (not worth it for a handful of cyclists)…
On the flip side – if we do get that kind of quality you might find it far more convenient than now (fewer traffic lights, some you may just be able to cycle past). And indeed you may well be on average faster – and in certainly more relaxed.
* Except for the likes of Reform perhaps. But they’re all for removing the cycle infra anyway so there wouldn’t be anywhere to banish the cyclists *to* (well… into cars or under the ground maybe? )
GDT1 wrote:
You and most definitely the coordinator of a road racing club are really not at all representative of the majority of folk who are too scared to cycle in traffic because of the bullying and intimidation from drivers. Bike infrastructure should be suitable for folk from eight to eighty years old. Maintaining 20mph/32kph to stop cars overtaking is only really for the strong and already competetent cyclists even if it is way better than 30 or 40mph roads. So it will still be a barrier to most other folk, even if on eBikes because assist runs out at 24kph.
As for leaves, they are all over the roads here [greenest city in Europe] and a key aspect of good bike infratstructure is constant maintenance.
All in favour of segregated
All in favour of segregated cycling infrastructure, and I realise there are planning and consultation costs, but unless there’s more to this scheme than is reported half a million quid to cement 1.2 miles of kerbing on the road is ludicrous. A quick look on the Internet reveals that kerbing can be acquired for about £10 per metre (that’s without any bulk reductions as presumably a council could negotiate), so that’s about £20,000, wages for a five-worker team for a fortnight say £10,000, chuck in another £70,000 for administration, plant hire et cetera and where is the other £400,000 going?
Did you also produce the
Did you also produce the original estimate of costs for HS2?
Are you actually serious when you suggest that 1.2miles of this work can be carried out in 2 weeks?
You mean there’s at least a
You mean there’s at least a week’s worth of tea breaks in there (concrete curing time mate), and (as happens certainly in these parts) anything that would take longer than say a week will be interrupted for variable periods of time (TBF sometimes due to protests from locals), perhaps necessitating more work putting up barriers and signs, then taking them down again…?
Mr Anderson wrote:
If, as this report seems to suggest, the only work being done is cementing a kerb along the existing dividing line, then yes. 1.2 miles equals just under 2 km, so 2000 kerbing blocks to be laid. Five worker team for two weeks equals 400 working hours. I would back myself, working alone, to be able to lay five kerbing blocks per hour on a level sound surface…but even if my estimate is wildly out, alright, let’s give them eight weeks to do it, wages cost £40,000, that still leaves £370,000 over.
The solution is very, very
The solution is very, very unlikely to be the placing of kerb stones on the existing road surface using 1:3 cement mortar for many reasons. The road will need to be excavated and the kerbstones placed on a concrete bed and surround. Then, the road surface would need to be reinstated. And how much would you allow for coning off the road and the cycle lane? What about the cost of temporary traffic lights on narrower sections? What about the cost of plant? What about the cost of disposing the excess road material? What prelims have you allowed for protection and insurance?
Drainage? I would suggest
Drainage? I would suggest installing a new kerbline in the existing road will affect the drainage. They will need to alter and/or install new road gulleys too!
Mr Regulation 109 wrote:
This will be news to Edinburgh council! We discovered that the protection on the cycle lane on London Road at Meadowbank was indeed just a sandwich of kerbs and cement (found when a large vehicle ran into it and shoved it out the way – as covered here some time back).
TBF that was a relatively short intervention and perhaps is still “experimental”. And they have made at least one “almost right” separate cycle track (the CCWEL from Roseburn to Haymarket).
Dunno if this one is value for money. But I agree that what we ultimately need is standard boring cycle infra, properly made by the usual authorities, and cheap by comparison with a road … but not for pence or free. As they do in eg. NL.
I would back myself, working
Clearly you are not a professional!
You’re one of these people
You’re one of these people who’d post on social media “The Chinese would have it built in a week!!” aren’t you?
Why not just admit you have no training in civil engineering and thus no real idea what you’re talking about, and simply ask a question about the cost instead of making yourself look like a fool?
Accessibility for all wrote:
Why not just post a reasoned temperate post explaining why you disagree, instead of insulting the poster and making yourself look unpleasant?
Accessibility for all wrote:
Are you not familiar with Internet forums? ?
Bless. Feel better now,
Bless. Feel better now, sweetie? If you’ve got the experience and knowledge to show that it’s fully justified that this project should cost £500,000 then by all means show it, otherwise you’ve given no reason to suppose that that you are any less ignorant or any less of a fool than I am. I’ve simply put out my back of a fag packet calculations and I did indeed ask a question, where is the other £400,000 going? A couple of people have given polite, reasoned and sensible answers which have made me think yes, it would cost more than I initially supposed although I still can’t see where £500,000 comes from. Your contribution has added absolutely nothing except to demonstrate that you are unnecessarily rude and aggressive.
Local Facebook groups…
Local Facebook groups… where hope goes to die! And utterly unrepresentative from what I have read in Bath!