Plans to build an 8km active travel route have been met with criticism from locals, particularly over the loss of parking spaces and concerns about traffic.
The route, which will connect Liverpool city centre with Childwall, will link into existing cycle provision at each end. It will include a fully segregated bi-directional cycle track on Fir Lane and Woolton Road, and include improved road and pavement surfaces and upgraded lighting.
Along the corridor are large residential areas, as well as Wavertree Sports Park, the University of Liverpool and Liverpool Hope University.
Liverpool City Council said a previous consultation found that 77% of respondents were supportive, while 69% said they would use the route if it were built.
However, some residents are critical of the proposals. Paul Jones, a cyclist who lives on Dunbabin Road, told the Local Democracy Reporter he is against the proposals.
“I asked them at the consultation if they had asked a cyclist how this would work?” he said. I’m five doors down from the junction, and we already get cars blocking my drive, and they’re going to decrease parking spaces.
“It feels like they haven’t done their due diligence. I think it will be more prone to accidents; it doesn’t add to anything. It doesn’t add up as a strategy.”
The council has said that clear and segregated cycle lane provision has already been delivered where possible, alongside the retention of as much parking as possible.
Tony Hollis, who has lived on Childwall Priory Road for the past 15 years, also raised concerns. “I’m all for improvements in terms of investment in the area, but I do have concerns about what they’re proposing. Half the parking spaces will disappear, which will hurt the business.
“It’s a lovely area but I don’t think the plans are popular with people in the neighbourhood. I don’t think they are going to work reducing traffic and there are other opportunities they could take. I’d like to think as residents we’d have more say on this rather than it being imposed on us.”
Despite this criticism, there are many residents expressing their support for the plans on Facebook. Picton Cycles, a Liverpool-based bicycle shop, said: “Sounds like a great idea, this would make it much more appealing for people to cycle and therefore reduce the number of cars on the roads and associated traffic problems.”
Jake Darby added: “Cycle lanes HELP drivers believe it or not! If there are more people cycling there are fewer people in their cars which means that there’ll be less traffic on the roads, that’s not that hard to understand. And yes, building better protected cycle lanes WILL encourage more people to cycle as they’ll feel safer doing so.
“People who are complaining that ‘the cycle lanes are empty’ or ‘the cyclists don’t use the cycle lanes’ — well yeah, it’s pretty hard to use painted cycle gutters when people just park in them because there’s no enforcement, so it’s no wonder cyclists are using the road or the pavement.
“These plans are a GOOD thing for Childwall, Woolton and Wavertree, whether you’re a walker, a biker, a driver or someone who’s disabled. Not to mention that potholes and current junction issues on main routes are likely to be addressed as part of this.”
Ewan Roberts added: “Good stuff, active travel routes are the future. We need to discourage car use, not facilitate it. It’s not the 1970s anymore.”
Councillor Pat Moloney said: “I’m not happy with the proposals for the area. I think it’s causing even more problems, particularly around Childwall Priory Road. The roadway is too narrow, people won’t be able to park by their houses.
“Cllr Mike Storey and I have both asked for parking to be improved by the triangle. This isn’t the right use of space. There is a better solution that doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.”
Councillor Dan Barrington, Liverpool Council cabinet member for transport and connectivity, said: “We are currently reviewing all the feedback we’ve received from residents and people who regularly travel through the area. Thank you to everyone who shared their views.
“Everyone’s input will be considered as the scheme progresses, and any concerns around the proposed work will be taken on board during the design process. The proposed scheme aims to make our roads safer and easier to use for people walking, wheeling and cycling.
“Active travel brings real health benefits, and we want to give everyone more choice in how they move around the city.”
Views from a series of consultation events will be taken forward to form the design of the scheme, with construction expected to begin in phases in late 2027 or early 2028. The design work has been funded by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
22 thoughts on “Residents concerned “half the parking spaces will disappear” in new cycle lane plans, despite 69% saying they would use the route”
> Paul Jones, a cyclist
I really couldn’t give a toss what “cyclists” think of new protected infra. If he has a concern, send it to Active Travel England. Hopefully they can remind him that protected infra is primarily for people who would like to cycle, but who won’t mix with traffic. And that isn’t him.
If he was really a cyclist he wouldn’t be so bothered about people parking across his drive, he is probably a motorist who also owns a bike!
“Avid cyclist”
BikesnobNYC covered the type https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/opinion/who-are-all-these-avid-cyclists-anyway/
Paul Jones’ comments don’t come across as particularly constructive (he does seem mostly concerned with the loss of parking spaces and people blocking his drive), but I as a general principle, I don’t think someone’s views should be dismissed just because the are (already) a cyclist.
There are countless examples of woefully inadequate cycling infrastructure, many of which have been featured on road.cc over the years (“Why cyclists don’t use the cycle lane #412” etc.).
I might be a cyclist, but I would still much rather use good quality segregated infrastructure than fight for space with cars on the road. If a cycle track makes my journey safer, faster and more convenient, why would I not use it?
There is probably a small zone of designs where I, as a confident cyclist, might decide to not use cycling infrastructure because it’s marginally slower, but the cycling infrastructure is nonetheless good enough to attract someone who wouldn’t otherwise cycle. But that zone is pretty small – most of the cycling infrastructure I deliberately avoid is just crap, and anyone who does not currently cycle is not going to be persuaded to change their mind because of it.
I don’t think someone’s views should be dismissed just because he is (already) a cyclist
We aren’t! We’re dismissing them because he’s an obvious ‘I’m a cyclist myself’ IACM who is only interested in Panzer Parking
Looking at Woolton Road, which seems to form the main spine of these proposals, it appears to consist almost entirely of nice big houses with substantial driveways and garages; presumably the worry about parking is “There won’t be room to park the family SUV and my sports car and my two children’s hatchbacks and where am I supposed to keep the speedboat and the caravan?”
In Japan you need proof of an off-road parking space before you can own a car and overnight street parking is illegal. That’s civilised.
criticism from locals, particularly over the loss of parking spaces and concerns about traffic
This is invariable and unimaginative moaning from the usual suspects over any proposal that isn’t designed to reduce or eliminate cycling- blinkered dimwit slobs who are only interested in the ability to park unlimited numbers of unlimited size panzers wherever and whenever they like, while professing, hands pressed together in prayer, concern for the disabled, the elderly , trees, wildlife, children, whatever.
Cycle paths save lives.
Why not just double yellow and red line the roads. Easy. Unless there are shops then no road side parking is needed. And even then I have reservations.
Well allowing you reserved parking just to go to the shops seems deeply unfair. You’re not golfing buddies with the local councillors by any chance are you?
Because, no matter what they say, their true sympathies are with drivers and ‘they have to park somewhere’. That’s how entrenched CoaB’s motornormativity has become in the UK. DVLA assists people evading VED for years, police (well, I’m only certain about Lancashire Constabulary) assist people committing criminal MOT offences, red light offences, phone offences, white line offences…
Not sure I’d be overly delighted with the possessive if I was CoaB. Imagine if ‘Chrisonabike Syndrome’ sticks and associates the name with the disorder for evermore.
I can only apologise. But I’d rather not folks didn’t mention it.
(Argh helpful phone, no edit button and another bizarre sentence)…
Jesus, the council have done such a good job on the consultation, that despite me living 2 miles from the proposed scheme, this is the first I’ve heard of it.
I knew of the west derby corridor, but not this, on what is a lovely wide leafy road. That can in the main support this.
The shops are in the main independents that you do want to support.
What wrinkles me is many on here stereotyping respondents without knowing the area or it’s transport dynamics, nor the complete failure of recent Liverpool schemes and rightful public back lash
So the cycle route is 8 km long, you live 3 km from it, so to inform everyone living as close as you the council would have to cover an area 14 km x 6 km, 84 km², the population density of Liverpool is 4500 people per square kilometre, so that’s 378,000 people to be informed. With postage and printing costs et cetera that would run to close to a million quid and doubtless lead to outrage about wasting council money. A quick Google shows that there’s been coverage of this in the local press since 2021, sometimes it’s up to us to keep ourselves informed.
PS (yet again lovely people at road.cc, please can we have the edit button back) Two miles is quite a significant distance in this context; I live only just over two miles from the Houses of Parliament but I don’t expect to be directly consulted regarding any changes to traffic management in Parliament Square.
It’s another problem of motor-assisted mobility. The place might be ten miles away, but “I drive (through) there every day!”
Also it’s amazing how well human attention filters screen out things not of immediate interest. Posters are ignored, flyers are binned, local media articles skipped over, social media stuff is muted … then it’s “first I’ve heard of it” and “why was I never consulted?”
There *are* examples of councils apparently wanting things to be less visible. (Edinburgh’s tram extension consultation last year seemed under-advertised – although they did at least put on a series of meetings along the route).
But as you say attention is a practice and most people don’t extend that to the quotidien work of local authorities.
Absolutely, local elections are significant proof of this (although the upcoming ones might buck the trend given the way they have been hyped into supposedly being a pseudo-referendum on the state of the nation); time and again we hear complaints of local councils being “unaccountable” and taking “undemocratic” decisions “without proper consultation” and yet only 30-35% of eligible voters bother to exercise their democratic right in local elections. Apparently we want accountable councils who consult us about everything but the majority of us can’t be arsed to participate in the primary means of holding local councils to account by visiting a polling station once every four years.
“They’re going to remove half the parking spaces”
Looks like they could usefully remove the half on the right hand side!
Another case of we can’t have cycle infra because “but we have driveways!” (… and ALSO don’t even park on them).
Noting that is entirely useless pointless paint there. As an “advisory cycle lane” (dashed line) that means absolutely nothing in practice (even “mandatory cycle lanes” don’t mean much).
It’s the infra equivalent of wearing a tabard with “please don’t drive into me” in 12pt text.