Big data surprises

It has been quite the week for data.

The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust have launched their annual Staff Travel Survey. Last year’s results are available in the Trust’s Travel Plan. It reveals that 9% of staff cycle to work:

The official figures for Belfast indicate cycling is somewhere between 3 and 5%, with cycling across Northern Ireland at 1% stubbornly refusing to move out of the statistical noise (i.e., the margin of error in the stats is greater than the reported number) in the past decade.

The 2018 staff travel survey shows the number of cycling commuters are at least double the city’s average.

This has big consequences for Belfast. The Trust is responsible for 1/3 of Belfast traffic. And how Trust staff travel has a real effect on congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions.

The targets for 2020 are mind-boggling:

The Trust are aiming for a 16% overall drop in car use, from 71% to 55%. The Transport staff I spoke to were confident they will achieve this, but we await the details on how. It is clear the Trust are betting on car share and increasing the number of bus commuters.

Surprising counts

Dublin does an annual cordon count, but Belfast doesn’t. I wanted to find out what the numbers of cyclists are on our roads, just to see if the chatter about increasing numbers is justified.

My methodology was simple. In a 20 minute period, count all traffic, both ways, and categorise into cyclists, buses and other traffic. I chose 4 locations I could reach by 08:30. I used the Thing Counter App, and set a 20 minute timer.

Obviously, there are flaws. They are not on the same day of the week and weather forecasts could have influenced the numbers on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Heavy showers were forecast for those days, whereas Friday was forecast as a fine, sunny day. The 20 minute time interval is also relatively short and the chosen time is skewed heavily towards those cycling to work.

For Lisburn Road the go to figure has been 1 to 3% depending on location; 7% for inner south east Belfast.

How did it pan out?

  • Lisburn Road, north of the junction with Marlborough Park: 15 cyclists; 19 buses; 361 other motor vehicles. 15/380: 3.9%
  • Lisburn Road, south of the junction with Elmwood Avenue: 23, 19, 464, 23/506: 4.5%
  • University Road, south of the junction with Elmwood Avenue: 21, 9, 537, 21/567: 3.7%
  • Ormeau Road, junction with Stranmillis Embankment: 116, 20, 474, 116/610: 19.0%

The Ormeau Road was the only location with school children cycling. And perhaps that is not a surprise, given it is also the only location of the 4 with safe designated space for cycling: the junction is where the Towpath crosses Ormeau Road.


Money for cycling infrastructure is always treated as an extra; something to be considered separately from the big hitting road building projects.

Utrecht commissioned a report to see if the multimillion Euro investment in cycling was worth it. In the Bruto Utrechts Fietsproduct report published in 2017 the municipality reckons the benefit to Utrecht is €250,100,000 per year. No, I did not add a few zeros for a laugh.

And who in the community benefits most? Drivers. For each Euro benefit, 72 cents is benefiting drivers in reduced congestion and increased reliability on the road network. The next biggest benefit is reduced absence in the workplace through sickness: 11 cents.

Cycling, the report states, benefits society by €0.50 per km cycled.

So, far from a frivolous extra for weekend leisure cyclists, putting cycling front and centre in road planning makes financial sense. We all benefit.


The take home message for Department for Infrastructure is simple: build cycleways along Ormeau Road; take the Towpath underneath the bridge, along the water’s edge, just like is done a little upstream at Governor’s Bridge.

Enabling cycling like this will, ironically, benefit drivers, through reducing congestion.

Ormeau Road is one of the most congested roads in the UK outside London. Whatever Department for Infrastructure have tried until now is not working.

Gather numbers. Department for Infrastructure won’t budget for cycling, because the gathered statistics are too poor to show areas with high cycling uptake. The existing figures need to be updated, and budget allocated accordingly.

It will be worth it.

Clifton Gateway – A Traffic Sewer Repackaged

Earlier in the year the Department for Communities released their proposals for redeveloping Crumlin Road, Carlisle Circus and Clifton Street.

The plans are available here.

The project’s introduction recognises the poor quality of the public realm, the severance caused by the hostile environment for pedestrians around Clifton Street’s junctions with the Westlink and Carrick Hill. The Westlink cuts neighbourhoods off from the city centre, and separates communities from economic opportunity. To the north and west of the Westlink lie some of Europe’s poorest neighbourhoods. To the south and east are some of Northern Ireland’s wealthiest districts.

There is nothing bad about the context and background. It even mentions cycling without adding “foolhardy“.


The project’s objectives include: “d. to design and deliver the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the relevant phases of the Belfast Cycle Network Programme.”


What does the Programme for Government say? In the absence of a Minister the civil service should continue the directives of the most recent Programme for Government.

The Government have recognised that the share of 25% walking, cycling and use of public transport is stagnant and not sustainable. This percentage has to be much higher. It has remained roughly the same for much of the past decade.

Indicator 25, section 3.17 says:

“Provision of adequate infrastructure is critically important. We will, therefore, aim to BUILD [sic] a comprehensive network for the bicycle – the emphasis is on providing good quality safe and accessible infrastructure so that people will have the freedom and confidence to travel by bicycle for everyday journeys.”

This is further fleshed out in the Department for Infrastructure’s Bicycle Strategy.

All good. With such a framework in place we should expect something really good. A segregated cycleway of perhaps an even better standard than the Middlepath Cycleway.


What is offered to pedestrians and cyclists in these plans?

The area has a number of collision black spots for cycling: the Agnes Street junction, outside the Mater Hospital, Carlisle Circus, the junction with the Westlink and the Carrick Hill junction:

Here is a Google Streetview of the current cycle lane on Crumlin Road:

The green paint has all but been worn away, because drivers abuse it as a free car park for the nearby Mater hospital. It is effectively useless as a cycle lane.

In the opposite direction there is a bus lane, which cyclists may use. Except, of course, for 22 hours of the day when it is a car park. It is effectively useless as cycle infrastructure. And ineffective as a bus lane also.

The plans are for exactly the same.

This cross-section is located here (in red dashes):

In summary, there are no plans for good quality accessible and safe cycle infrastructure on the Crumlin Road.

The civil servant responsible will argue they were never going to build anything new there, because that particular road is not included in the Network Plan. So they don’t have to do anything at all.

Belfast Cycle Network Plan routes (red), Clifton Gateway (green)

Except they do, under the terms of the Programme for Government Indicator 25, they have to build good quality, safe and accessible cycle infrastructure to give people the freedom and confidence to travel by bicycle to go to a hospital, say, or go into the city centre.

Summing up, the cycle lane plans for Crumlin Road fail to meet the project’s targets, do not meet the requirement set out in Indicator 25 of the Programme for Government and least of all will persuade more people in North Belfast to cycle.

Within the same footprint available on Crumlin Road DfI could build something like this:

Carlisle Circus

In my blog about roundabouts I mentioned Carlisle Circus as a possible site for a Dutch-style roundabout with protection for cyclists and improved crossings for pedestrians.

The current situation:

And the proposed situation:

We await DfI’s plans eagerly, because the plans for this junction and the Carrick Hill junction are yet to finalised. Whatever it is, it has to enable pedestrians and cyclists to make their everyday journeys with freedom and confidence.

A few questions, though. Why is there car parking on the circle itself? A roundabout with car parking. Mad. Almost as mad as a motorway roundabout with a footpath around it.

Would that space not be better used to make the roundabout safer?

Is there perhaps a lid on any radical change here? We can be pretty sure the final junction design will try and accommodate the big purple Glider buses.

Belfast Rapid Transit, phase 2

The BRT Gliders made an appearance in the Shaftesbury Square public realm plans, because phase 2 of the big purple bus will open up a north-south route across the city, with tentative plans for a route from Newtownabbey to Knockbracken, with a spur to Queen’s University Belfast. The exact route has not been settled yet, but space is reserved across the city nonetheless. What is the point, argue the civil servants at DfI, of making Carlisle Circus a place where people can walk and cycle with freedom and confidence now, when we will go and rip it up in a few years anyway?

The Belfast City Deal includes the funding from central government for the North South BRT, which is conditional on the Assembly being restored.

Readers, it may be a few years before the BRT comes anywhere near Carlisle Circus, if at all. In the meantime any developments that could benefit pedestrians and cyclists are stifled.

Grosvenor Road

Even when the BRT goes somewhere else, the resulting free road space is not automatically given to other sustainable travel modes. A little way along the Westlink the East West BRT was initially planned to go up Grosvenor Road. It was instead routed along the Falls Road a little north.

The Belfast Cycle Network Plan RVH to Comber cycleway fizzles out at the junction of Durham Street and Grosvenor Road. An empty expanse of tarmac lies between there and the gates of the hospital.

No room for cycling here

Cyclists are routed, diverted, along the polluted, noisy Westlink, where WHO air quality levels are breached on more than 25% of days of the year. And the gate from the Westlink to the RVH campus is closed at weekends.

Carlisle Circus reimagined

For an idea on how to improve Carlisle Circus for pedestrians and cyclists and include mass transit we -naturally- head off to the Netherlands.

Mark Wagenbuur wrote about this roundabout in Amsterdam, the Hugo de Grootplein, which includes a tram track. And what is the BRT, but a tram without tracks?

Dare the Department for Infrastructure build something mad like this? Maybe. They, after all, came up with a single lane motorway roundabout with a footpath.

Clifton Street

Clifton Street is a traffic sewer. It collects traffic from the Antrim and Crumlin Roads and dumps it in Belfast’s answer to Rome’s Cloaca Maxima, the Westlink. To continue with the scatological theme, the Westlink is part of the 1960s Belfast Urban Motorway (BUM, in case the penny drops more slowly for you).

It is more than a road, an attempt to build barriers between rich and poor, Catholic and Protestant. Belfast is criss-crossed with euphemistically called Peace Lines. Instead these lines are the petrified remains of our conflict, uniting communities on both sides under the peace line’s dark shadow.

(c) PRONI/SpatialNI

The map of Belfast prior to the Westlink shows a dense network of streets and alleys. They were all cleared away and the residents moved to bright and breezy, optimistic sprawl and new towns at the edge of ever expanding outer urban Belfast.

The Westlink is a formidable moat. And Clifton Street is one of the few bridges across it into central Belfast.

The Clifton Gateway project recognises the severance, this barrier caused by too many vehicles in too little space, suffocating the life out of this area of town. Literally.

Image showing air pollution in Belfast.

Let’s see a before and after and see how pedestrians can walk with confidence and freedom from Carlisle Circus to Carrick Hill.

Clifton Street – current

Clifton Street – proposed

A new bridge railing. That is it. No doubt more pleasing to the eye than the existing utilitarian fence. They plan to overcome a barrier to walking and cycling, a traffic bottleneck, with a fancy bridge railing.

The plans acknowledge the existing footways are challenging, full of dips, bumps, kerbs and odd slopes. So walking might be made easier, but is it enough to encourage people to walk beside a noisy, smelly 5 lane traffic sewer, crossing flows of traffic to and from the Westlink; a journey currently undertaken by car?

There is nothing for cyclists. There is an advisory cycle lane on Crumlin Road, but where it is needed most, at Carlisle Circus and along Clifton Street there is nothing.

The plans maintain 5(!) lanes for motor traffic. There are no bus lanes, not even for the BRT.

Belfast is not going to achieve its aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution targets if the government like a gambling addict keeps backing the losing horse, or in this case the car. If we want road space for cyclists and buses space needs to be taken from one or more general traffic lanes.

Happily, Clifton Street has plenty of room for bus lanes, cycleways, leaving 2 lanes of general traffic.

Programme for Government Indicator 23

Indicator 23 looks at increasing capacity of the strategic road network. The ways it is hoped this will be achieved:

  • road infrastructure investment at localised congestion pinch points in the network
  • identify and investigate any pinch points which appear to be operating inefficiently (e.g. relatively low flows but high delays)
  • remove interaction between local and strategic traffic through:
  • bypasses of towns and villages
  • restricting access to the strategic network for traffic undertaking local journeys

This opens up a whole new realm of possibilities.

Removal of the Clifton Street/Westlink junction

The junction with the Westlink pulls traffic from across North Belfast towards it. It increases traffic on surrounding roads; much the same way the Stranmillis gyratory pulls traffic towards itself.

Down below, on the Westlink, the weaving of traffic to access the Clifton Street slip roads, or of traffic joining the Westlink, reduces speed and capacity, reduces traffic flow.

Be radical! Remove the slip roads, remove the central filter lane on Clifton Street, do away with the traffic lights. Do away with the junction.

Fewer drivers will come to Clifton Street, because they can no longer access the Westlink there. Which is good, because you have just given all that space to buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

The drivers will soon discover that they can still access the strategic road network at Fortwilliam, York Street and Divis Street.

Carrick Hill Junction

The Carrick Hill junction is a mess, 5 roads converge on the junction. It is a challenge for any cyclist or pedestrian to cross safely.

There are filter lanes inviting drivers to cut across cyclists going straight ahead. One is at Donegall Street entering Carrick Hill, the other on Carrick Hill, entering Clifton Street.

There is no need for filter lanes in inner urban areas. Filter lanes, advanced stop lines, pedestrian guard rails and staggered crossings (all found on this junction) have little to do with safety, but everything to do with improving car traffic flow. They are symptoms of car-centred road design, obsessed with moving cars.

This should be a place where people using public transport, people walking and people cycling dominate.

A proposed Belfast Cycle Network route crosses the junction, from Carrick Hill to North Queen Street.

Instead of a space for people, we have dreadful wasteland of tarmac. A road diet is long overdue for this morbidly obese junction.

If you arrive at this junction by car your destination should be nearby in the city centre. If your destination is elsewhere the light sequence and road layout should quickly send you back to the nearest Westlink access at York Street.

It will be interesting to see how the Department for Infrastructure resolve this. For inspiration they could look to the Heetmanplein in ‘s Hertogenbosch. Here an over-complicated junction was massively reduced in size and made safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The before and after are pictured below:

Donegall Street

Thank you, if you have made it this far. If you are a cyclist, the worst of the traffic is now behind you.

Currently, Donegall Street is a tired looking, inner city street. However, change is coming to this corner of Belfast where the University of Ulster are building their new city centre campus. The whole area is overseen by cranes, new high rise university buildings and student residential blocks.

The plans are to maintain what is there, but improve the pavement surface.

The plans for Donegall Street should reflect the population shift in the area. More walking, enabling cycling, public transport as the street’s main user.

A bit like so, perhaps?

Donegall Street (featuring a 6.5m wide footway!) is wider than Nobelstraat in Utrecht, so most of the car parking could be maintained, to protect cyclists on the cycleway from passing vehicles. The Transport for Greater Manchester design guide provides a helpful diagram for a hybrid (terrace) cycle track.

A stepped bicycle track

In summary

Like the Shaftesbury Square plan, the proposed changes do not amount to much change at all and will certainly fail to lift the number of people walking and cycling in North Belfast. The plans do not reduce car traffic or road space for cars, and do not give space for cycling and public transport.

The plans are a beauty makeover for a traffic sewer; it will remain a traffic sewer. It is a traffic sewer repackaged.

We have a very short time to radically change our city and the way we move around it in order to save the planet from the worst effects of climate change.

These plans are deeply disappointing for those looking to improve air quality and improve health outcomes of the communities beside these roads.

The best thing the responsible government departments can do is to rip up these plans and start again. Imagine a new Belfast, where people are put first, not just those privileged enough to own and drive a private car.


“We live in greystown aera &the speed of vehicles coming up&down the street is frightening,Its a built up area with lots of children &we can’t let our kids out the front.Something has to be done before it’s to late.”

So starts a thread on Nextdoor. The replies:

Indeed. What price is a child’s life? People list incidents, collisions, some resulting in damage to property. And Department for Infrastructure refuse to act.

A petition will not achieve much either. A petition with 1500 signatures calling for the pedestrianisation of Hill Street, supported by politicians of every hue and local businesses was airily dismissed by DfI. And unless someone dies in Greystown, the residents’ petition is equally doomed to fail.


Greystown Park is a road that links Finaghy Road South to Upper Malone Road. It is a residential road, but as so many residential roads in Belfast is used as an alternative to avoid queuing traffic at the top of Finaghy Road South and bypassing some of the morning rush hour congestion on Upper Malone Road.

Greystown Close is a cul-de-sac off Greystown Park.

Greystown Avenue is a residential cul-de-sac, off Greystown Park, but it also links to Finaghy Road South with a footpath.

(c) Google

The Remedy

The residents want to see traffic calming, i.e. speed bumps, but other voices question their usefulness in reducing traffic volume or speed.

At nearby Diamond Gardens in Finaghy speed bumps fail to deter the number of drivers choosing residential streets in order to avoid the chronic congestion at Finaghy crossroads.

Speeding remains an issue. At Strangford Avenue traffic speeds are not noticeably lower despite speed bumps, because the road environment in between encourages driving at 30mph.

The two streets require different solutions to their problem.

Greystown Park

Northern Ireland Water carried out work that blocked off the entrance to Upper Malone Road. Traffic for the entire neighbourhood was rerouted through the Finaghy Road South entrance. Traffic volume was notably lighter in the morning rush hour as rat running drivers were forced to use the main road instead.

Greystown Park can be severed for motor vehicles just above the junction with Greystown Close.

Pedestrian and cyclist access can be maintained, but rat-running will be prevented.

Simple, effective filtering on Donegall Road, Belfast

The question is whether residents are willing to give up the minor convenience of having two access points for their neighbourhood to stop the major inconvenience of rat running and careless driving?


Through decades of car-centred road design and planning, coupled with conditioning from manufacturers, Belfast residents have come to think of cars as their only or preferred mode of transport. Any measures to reduce the negative impact of motoring are framed as reduction of personal freedoms in the local media.

The key to introducing traffic control measures is getting community input and ownership.

Sadly, we live in NI, where we are administered by faceless bureaucrats who operate without much oversight from our politicians.

Attempts to address any issues on and surrounding our roads are routinely stonewalled by the Department for Infrastructure.

Greystown Avenue

Greystown Avenue is a cul-de-sac, so a 20mph or even 15mph speed limit, enforced by placement of planters, installing speed tables and chicanes will result in a much safer environment for children to play.

Traffic calmed residential street in de Vossener, Venlo, NL

Another example here in Houten, near Utrecht, where, despite completely prioritising pedestrian and cycle traffic, residents can easily access their house by car.

Guerrilla methods

Inspired by the plunger bike lanes in the US, residents could take matters into their own hand and improve their street.

One tactic that could work locally is for residents to park on alternate sides of the street to create chicanes, forcing traffic to slow down. It wouldn’t take much organising. You see your neighbour’s car as you drive up, so you park on the opposite side. The only agreement you need is for people to park their cars at the kerb, rather than on the drive.

Another tool to effect long-term change is to install a temporary parklet, such as these in London:

These could be developed by a residents’ committee as a community play area, seating with views over Belfast, or simply to meet and chat with neighbours. They are temporary, but could, if successful, easily be converted to permanent features.

In the meantime

In the meantime, residents need to organise; to log every traffic incident (however minor) and report them to the PSNI. They need to build a case for converting their street to a safer area for all to enjoy. They need to think creatively and approach political representatives as a collective. And they need to come up with creative and eye-catching ways to alert local media to their cause.

See the Cyclist

The Police Service NI rolled out its version of West Midland Police close passing initiative in the summer of 2017.

The initiative was also shared on Facebook.

The initiative was extended from Belfast to Bangor and Ards, perhaps in response to Gavin Moore’s death on the A21 near Bangor.

And elsewhere in NI in Newry and Mourne:

And Mid Ulster:

The #seethecyclist campaign is headed by the force’s neighbourhood policing teams. The main focus is on driver and cyclist education.

The force handed out lights to cyclists:

All good and well.

What has been missing from the news headlines is how many drivers have been spoken to about their driving about cyclists.

West Midlands Police have been very vocal in sharing their success, reducing serious cycling KSI (killed and seriously injured) by a fifth.

Belfast local media picked up the start of the PSNI campaign announcement, which was criticised by local cycling campaigners for focusing on cyclist visibility, rather than driver behaviour.

However, drivers have been educated.

The lack of news in main stream media about campaign successes was worrying. Has the campaign actually been followed through and are officers on the street catching careless and dangerous drivers?

An FoI request revealed that in Belfast and Bangor and Ards districts a total of 39 and 8 drivers respectively were offered advice about their driving. Additionally 250 information packs were handed out to cyclists.

No drivers were prosecuted.


PSNI is to be commended for adopting See the Cyclist as a strategy to reduce cycling KSI. Their work with cycling clubs is very good and should give the PSNI a shout at lifting a Fred Award later this year.

However, they can do more.

The lack of prosecutions is worrying. If the campaign is not backed up by punishing poor driving behaviour drivers will not change. You have to question the impact on drivers if all they have to sit through is a word of advice.

Also, the scheme’s successes need to be shared more widely. At present See the Cyclist is buried in the Facebook feed of neighbourhood policing teams. It needs to start hitting the headlines.

Taking back the Square, part 2

Three years ago I blogged on the consultation for the redevelopment of Shaftesbury Square, launched by the then Department of Social Development, now Department for Communities.

The plans mentioned the poor provision for cyclists travelling across the Square from North to South. It did not mention cyclists being unable to cross the Square from Donegall Road to Donegall Pass. No mention either of the Belfast Bikes hire stations in Botanic Avenue or Bradbury Place.

My blog post was picked up by the design company, GM Design Associates. My comments would be passed on to Billy Robinson, the project lead, who is a “keen cyclist”.

You then think in the intervening years, with Belfast Bikes establishing themselves into the streetscape, 2 Ciclovia events, increasing numbers of people on bikes crossing the Square daily for commuting, shopping or leisure, the plans under the aegis of a keen cyclist would move away from providing for cars to something more pleasing, more people friendly, more human scale.

So, what has changed?

The words remain good, though I have to take issue with the insertion of “most foolhardy” in the description of cyclists who currently use the Square.

How exceptionally hostile and hazardous is it?

Mapped are all collisions involving cyclists between 1998 and 2015. This reveals that lower Botanic Ave, site of the Belfast Bikes hire station, is a very hazardous place.

The hot spots for cycling collisions, besides the bottom end of Botanic Avenue are on the corner of Donegall Road and Shaftesbury Square;

outside the former Northern Bank on the corner of Bradbury Place;

and at the point where the lane entering Botanic Avenue and Donegall Pass meet:

The plans would only address the latter, as the plans are summarised best as the removal of the Botanic Avenue slip lane to make a larger public space.

At the end of my blog I scribbled a plan of how the plans could be improved. I was still maintaining the Great Victoria Street and Dublin Road gyratory.

We now have had 2 Ciclovia events, showing the potential benefit of pedestrianising Botanic Avenue and Dublin Road, and the excellent route Dublin Road would make as the primary access into the heart of Belfast, continuing along Bedford Street.

Over the years Belfast’s Golden Mile along Great Victoria Street has withered and is now only found in people’s memories and sepia tinted photographs. However, a lot of nightlife, pubs, restaurants and cafés are now along the axis of Dublin Road, Botanic Avenue and Bradbury Place.

The Department for Communities plans should look beyond the Square and move through traffic away from Dublin Road and Botanic Avenue.

Removing through traffic from Dublin Road will result in Great Victoria Street becoming two way, with a much simplified junction with Donegall Pass and Donegall Road. If Botanic Avenue were pedestrianised the junction would be far simpler still.

Great Victoria Street has ample space to accommodate 2 bus lanes, 2 general traffic lanes and cycle paths. If the Department for Infrastructure can give up its obsession with on-street parking.

Walking into a nightmare

The biggest problem with the Department’s plans is turning Shaftesbury Square into a shared space. This would require a massive reduction in traffic volume. The plans only mention a reduction in vehicle speed.

The plans set out 10 transport goals:

So let’s see how this has been translated into the plan.

No dedicated cycle route through the Square. No bus stop bypasses. A shared space, where up to 3000 vehicles an hour cars jostle for room to move. More car parking is included in an area where there is already no shortage of spaces.

This is not going to improve the place for pedestrians or cyclists. People with impaired vision or mobility will struggle to move safely across a space without clearly demarcated spaces for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

Building crumbling infrastructure

It is not as if this idea has not been tried before. And failed.

Here is Frideswide Square in Oxford:

Read about damage here: or here:

And concerns from cyclists:

And visually impaired people:

It was nominated for a prize. Mortifying.

Exhibition Road in London is often cited as a successful design, but I felt the central car space acts as a barrier to crossing the road, with pedestrians pushed together against the facades of the museum buildings:

Shared Space for the Fittest and Strongest

Closer to home, in Lisburn, Joanna Toner won a court case over the use of low kerbs in the town centre shared space development. “[Joanna] stated that previously she could walk around Lisburn city centre without difficulty, accompanied by her guide dog or using a white cane.” But no longer. The shared space has destroyed her independence and confidence.

Lord Holmes called for a moratorium on shared space schemes.

With the large volume of traffic on Shaftesbury Square the definition of shared space is pushed beyond its limit.

LTN 1-11 (link above) talks of a threshold of 100 vehicle movements an hour at which point the space becomes a road to be crossed, rather than a truly shared space. None of the arms of Shaftesbury Square are anywhere near that figure. Donegall Pass with 400 vehicle movements is the least busy but still 4 times the threshold.

In the GM Design plan the roads will remain roads to be crossed, and pedestrians will remain pushed to the edges of the Square, near the buildings.

How does a blind person negotiate with 50 vehicles a minute in crossing the Square? How will an 8 year old cycle safely across this space with around 70 buses per hour?

Traffic volume needs to be reduced dramatically before we start dreaming of turning Shaftesbury Square into a space for events. Simply putting a 20mph speed limit sign up and putting down nice slabs of stone is not going to achieve very much.

Inspiration from elsewhere

Haarlemmerplein, Amsterdam. Mark Wagenbuur did a little portrait of Haarlemmerplein in Amsterdam. Its redevelopment was controversial, with the design changing from a historically inaccurate pond to a water feature similar to the one at Belfast Custom House Square.

The take home message there is the rerouting of the main flow of traffic away from Haarlemmerdijk, across the square to Haarlemmer Houttuinen, just to the north. Removing the main flow of traffic enabled a more human scale square. Somewhere to chat and to spend time and money.

Similarly, Times Square, New York. Snøhetta, the designers, boldly pedestrianised Broadway between 42nd and 47th Street, removing a flow of traffic across Times Square.

The Department for Communities was inspired by Times Square, but GM Design Associates were not bold enough to remove any traffic flows across Shaftesbury Square.


Noise pollution is a serious problem in Shaftesbury Square.

The dark blue splodge on the map above is where average daytime noise levels exceed 75dB. This is uncomfortably loud. People have to shout to make themselves heard.

One of the startling features of Dutch rush hours and cities is the lack of road noise. Staying in a B&B just off Amsterdam’s Vijzelgracht, the only clue that rush hour was in full swing was the ringing of tram bells and the sound of people chatting as they rode by on their bikes.

A street café is unimaginable in Shaftesbury Square unless road noise is reduced. Electric cars will reduce engine noise, but the equally noisy rumble of tyre noise and wind resistance remains.

Air Quality

These are NOx-emissions apportioned per vehicle type. We can now add that cars (especially diesels) are now known to be far more polluting than thought when Belfast City Council drew up its Air Quality Action Plan. Without drastic action Belfast air quality will fail to improve and annually 300 people will still die prematurely because of air pollution caused by traffic.

With these plans pedestrians and cyclists on Shaftesbury Square will continue to breathe in noxious fumes because no effort has been made to reduce through traffic.

Belfast Rapid Transit stunts development of arterial cycling routes

I am all for Rapid Transit. What I question about its implementation in Belfast is it being introduced without taking space from cars and removing space for cycle paths. In the consultation the Department for Infrastructure glibly dismissed cyclists’ concerns. I queried this with the Department and was told cyclists could use the bus lanes. As pointed out in the BRT consultation responses. And that was it. The Department for Infrastructure Cycling Unit shrugged its shoulders and Sustrans was happy with that.

In East Belfast a dogged campaign saved the Comber Greenway from being turned into a fast bus track. The route was put on the main Newtownards Road. Cyclists can use the parallel Comber Greenway.

In West Belfast the BRT goes up the Falls Road, Andersonstown Road and terminates on the Stewartstown Road. No alternative cycle route is available, though the Department for Infrastructure insists cyclists can use the paths through Bog Meadows instead.

That is perhaps fine for fit people on conventional bicycles, but everyone else will struggle.

The plan’s transport goals have the BRT at the apex of Belfast’s transport hierarchy.

The plans do not remove general traffic lanes to accommodate the dedicated bus lanes. And in the plans, despite having dedicated cycle tracks as a transport goal, no dedicated cycle tracks are included.

Unless GM Design Associates Billy Robinson, the foolhardy keen cyclist, doesn’t mind sharing with buses. And thinks a bus lane is a cycle lane.

I get tired trotting out this graph from Sustrans Belfast Bike Life report. Bus lanes you can cycle in are the least encouraging for getting more people to cycle.

Improving the design

Times Square, New York, shows how we can improve the presented plans. Dublin Road and Botanic Avenue need to be pedestrianised, with a two way cycle track along the entire length.

Donegall Pass is dead-ended for vehicle traffic at its junction with Botanic Avenue. Great Victoria Street becomes two way from Bruce Street to Bradbury Place. Great Victoria Street will have inward and outbound bus lanes, a general traffic lane in each direction and cycle tracks. The bus lanes and cycle tracks are continued up Bradbury Place. The cycle tracks flow behind the bus stops. On-street parking is removed entirely, leaving a only couple of loading bays and a taxi rank.

And if we really must continue to provide car parking…

In Leiden at the Lammermarkt an underground car park was built, leaving space on the surface for events. If Belfast were really ambitious it could do something similar. It has to be balanced by removing more surface parking in the city centre, so encouraging drivers not to take cars into the city centre.

A Green Barrier to Cycling

Geraldine McAteer, the Sinn Fein councillor for Balmoral invited people to attend a Belfast City Council consultation on replacing the green steel barriers on Finaghy Road North railway bridge.

I went along to see what was planned. Would it address any of the problems around Finaghy Road North: the rush hour congestion; the lack of cycle infrastructure; the poor access to Finaghy railway halt; the dangerous junctions of Finaghy Road North with Diamond Gardens and Orchardville Avenue.

To cut a long blog short. No, these plans concerned themselves only with the look of the bridge:

There was a choice of cladding for the bridge sides, paving slabs or tarmac and lighting options.

Early in the day people expressed a clear preference for sides that allowed people to see the trains, and didn’t offer a blank canvas to graffiti “artists”.

Also, people wished to have the bridge reinforced with a containment kerb and rail. This is understandable. The local environment, with a high traffic volume is threatening.


One, unintended, consequence of a containment kerb and rail is the narrowing of footpath space. Some of the path width will be recouped from removing the green barrier. Narrowing will be bad for pedestrians and cyclists.

The road itself is very narrow and doesn’t allow cyclists easy filtering past the queue of traffic. Most cyclists will continue to use the footpath, but with less space, more conflict seems inevitable.

Great Heck

After the Great Heck Rail Crash in 2001 railway bridges across the UK were assessed for safety. The crash near Selby was caused by a sleep deprived driver plunging his Land Rover and trailer, loaded with a Renault 21, off the M62 onto the East Coast Main Line. The southbound early morning Intercity service from Newcastle to King’s Cross hit the Land Rover and was pushed into the path of a freight train travelling in the opposite direction. 10 people died and 82 were injured.

The bridge at Finaghy was identified as in need of most upgrading in Northern Ireland.

Very soon after the “upgrade” local politicians called for the “ugliest bridge in Ireland” to be improved. We can only hope the current consultation is the beginning of the end for the green walls of Finaghy.


There is no budget for major, meaningful improvements. The current consultation is simply looking at replacing the green containment wall with a prettier arrangement.

No plans exist to making the bridge safe for cycling. Many cyclists choose the footpath rather than go on the road. The bridge approaches and nearby junctions are outside the project’s remit.

The footpath is not much better; the area is blighted with pavement parking and dog dirt.

Unaddressed problems

  • Finaghy and Andersonstown are car-centred neighbourhoods
  • Finaghy halt is accessed through a pub car park;
  • Access to the station for people using mobility aids, prams and bicycles is circuitous;
  • There are steep steps leading up to the road;
  • There is no footpath on both sides of the road;
  • There is no protection for cyclists;
  • Drivers make walking from the station hazardous at the junctions of Finaghy Road North and Diamond Gardens and Orchardville Avenue (below)
  • Finaghy Road North is used by through traffic; it is a favoured route for taxi drivers to and from Belfast International Airport to south and east Belfast.



This part of Belfast does not see much cycling. The 2011 Census shows the share for cycling at around 1% – about Northern Ireland average, but below areas to the northeast, closer to the city centre.

Few children cycle to school; the majority of primary school age children are brought by car. And all because the car is given priority.

Any solutions for this bridge should put the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport above that of car drivers.

Changing the environment

Despite there being 3 primary schools, 3 secondary schools, a health centre and library within walking distance to Finaghy cross roads, the light sequence massively favours cars. In a 3 minute light sequence only one phase of 20 seconds are allocated to pedestrians. This is not quite enough to cross diagonally. Though some try:

The nearby side streets are rat runs and they should be bunged:

With BRT coming to the northern end of Finaghy Road North, more should be done to dissuade residents in the area reaching for their car keys when they need to go out. Stopping rat running and inappropriate through traffic will increase road safety in the area, which will enable people to walk to the train or bus, to work and school.

Incentives need to be offered to residents to discover for themselves how good and convenient public transport or cycling can be for them. Most people reach for their car keys, because the other options are simply not familiar to them.

Solutions – Cycling

The Belfast Bicycle Network Plan reaches Finaghy Road North by way of the private school grounds belonging to Malone College and Cranmore Integrated Primary School (red on the map below). Which is strange, because the school gates close when the last member of staff leaves in the afternoon. During the day visitors to the grounds using the back gate at Musgrave Park are buzzed in.

A better solution here is to take the network cycle path along the railway straight to the station (green on the map below). The railway embankment and grounds are wide enough to accommodate a path. I suspect at some stage there were sidings here.

Finaghy Road should have cycle tracks running its entire length. It would enable more pupils cycling to school. The principal of Cranmore IPS welcomes more pupils coming to school on foot or by bike, but the road environment simply makes it impossible.

A solution for the look of the bridge should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the construction of cycle tracks at a later date.

Solutions – station access

What is amazing is that the bridge over the railway never had a footpath on both sides, as this view of Finaghy Lane in the 1930s shows.

However there was an access to the railway down a set of stairs on the south side. It appears the land immediately below and beside the bridge is still owned by Translink and gives access to the station forecourt via an arch. Why can this lane off Ardmore Avenue not be used for vehicle access to the station, rather than crossing the pub car park?

Giving the station its own access might stop this kind of thing happening:

Solutions – Pedestrian access

The station is currently reached by steps from the road level down to the platforms. For people using mobility aids, prams and bicycles there is a detour to a ground level path leading to the southbound platform and the halt’s forecourt.

Not having a footpath on both sides of this urban distributor road is not acceptable; it discriminates against those who have difficulty crossing roads. The lack of a footpath adds to the bridge being perceived as a barrier.

Simply because a footpath was not there in the 1930s is not a good enough reason to not have it there 80 years later. The area has changed beyond recognition.

Pedestrian walkways can be added to each side of the bridge with ramps leading straight down to platform level on both sides of the road and railway line.


The replacement of the ugly green barriers is long overdue. It detracts from the area and makes the walking and cycling environment even more hostile.

Narrowing the footpath to install containment kerbs will increase conflict between pedestrians and cyclists.

None of the areas traffic problems are addressed and no budget is available to put pedestrians, cyclists and public transport first.

The Alternative Belfast Bicycle Network Plan

The official version is pretty poor. Here’s my alternative.

Here’s that Department for Infrastructure map again:

Note the large blank spaces on the map in the south and east of the city. Let’s improve it.

First we need identify where cyclists currently are. 

They are in the city’s bus lanes along arterial routes, according to the Department for Infrastructure. One of the interesting things to have come out of the Taxis in bus lanes trial is evidence that cyclists use bus lanes in ever greater numbers:


The same data also show how taxis in bus lanes depress cycling figures. Cycling is virtually non-existent in West Belfast, with modal share below average for the whole of NI. The unique presence of taxi “buses” are to blame for keeping cycling figures low. 

Yellow areas: taxi buses have 2nd biggest share of commuting traffic after cars

Why do cyclists ride in bus lanes? Let’s quote the Department’s network plan: 

Coherence: cycling infrastructure should form a coherent entity, linking all trip origins and destinations; with a continuous level of provision;

Directness: routes should be as direct as possible, based on desire lines, since detours and delays will deter use;

Attractiveness:  routes should be attractive on subjective as well as objective criteria. Lighting, personal safety, aesthetics, noise and integration with the surrounding area are important;

Safety: designs should minimise the danger for all road users; and

Comfort: bicycle routes need smooth,well-maintained surfaces, regular sweeping, and gentle gradients. Routes need to be convenient to use and avoid complicated manoeuvres and interruptions.

In the absence of a safer alternative, the relative safety of bus lanes are a refuge to cyclists. But that misses out that bus lanes are also direct and in the morning peak hours a relatively coherent network. Certainly more coherent than the existing cycle paths.

Morning (left) and evening bus lane network (NIGreenways)

In drawing up its bicycle network plan, the Department is ignoring direct routes along arterials, arguing they are used by hardened commuters who will cycle a straight direct route regardless of the level of provision (which is mostly true) and inexperienced or novice cyclists will go out of their way to use a safe off-road alternative (which is not true). In their own words:

“detours and delays will deter use”

Humans tire and in Rotterdam as in Belfast cycling numbers drop off sharply after 5-6 miles. Make a route too long and people will use transit or their own car instead.

Belfast’s Bicycle Network should target people who currently use their car for journeys less than 5 miles. Research in London shows how 50% of car trips there could be cycled instead in 10 minutes or less.

How people in Belfast get around

When you compare Rotterdam with Belfast, it immediately becomes apparent Belfast commuters do not use public transit to the same extent. And for shorter distances Belfast commuters do not cycle at all. 

A similar proportion in both cities walk short distances. The presence of cycling infrastructure does not affect the number of people walking. Consequently, should Belfast build cycling infrastructure then its users will be by and large people who drove before.

Any strategy to reduce congestion in Belfast will need to encourage more people to use train or bus if their commute is over 5 miles, and convince those within a 5 mile radius of City Hall that cycling is a viable alternative. And that means all residents of Belfast:

Almost the whole city is less than 5 miles from City Hall

The network plan as presented by the Department for Infrastructure brings a path to within 400m of the majority of homes in Belfast. The vision recognises the existence of the amenity cyclist. All good. 

The planned routes then avoid amenities, mostly situated along Belfast’s main roads. Schools are not served well by the plans. Direct routes to the Royal Hospitals along Boucher Road and Grosvenor Road veer away within sight of the destination. This is difficult to comprehend.

What the Department’s plans clearly lack is directness. With the official plans relying heavily on sharing space with pedestrians, and leaving cyclists to share with motor vehicles along main roads safety is an issue also.

As illustration for the Department’s skewed priorities:

Cycling (green) vs. driving; how much quicker again if there were a cycle path beside the Ormeau Road?

Not all routes in the official plans are bad ideas, and not all bits of the badly chosen routes are useless. All in all, most of it can be retained as a secondary network reaching into the heart of neighbourhoods, giving access to all.

Cycle Superhighway 

What I find funny, from a Dutch perspective, is the UK’s obsession with cycle superhighways. Photos and videos of this space age cycle infrastructure in London invariably show what Dutch people call a “fietspad” or even a “fietsstrook”. Fietspaden (cycle paths) and fietsstroken (cycle lanes) can be found in any Dutch village, town and city.

Snelfietsroutes (cycle superhighways) should be aimed at replacing cars on busy transport corridors. They are born out of the realisation around a third of traffic on congested strategic trunk roads is local traffic, going only a short distance, a distance that can be cycled. 

The Rijnwaalpad (15.8km) between Arnhem and Nijmegen, alongside the busy A325, sees around 1000 cycle users daily, 50% of which cycle the path’s entire length; 20% of users have bought an e-bike specifically for that commute. And 90% commute all year. 

Michelle McIlveen, as Minister for Regional Development, went to see the Beuningen to Nijmegen snelfietsroute, and hoped it would be a good template for an upgrade of the Comber Greenway to a cycle superhighway. And it is.

Other cycle superhighways can be included, using existing paths, but upgraded to suit commuting, reaching beyond the city limits into Belfast’s commuter belt. Paths towards Holywood, Comber, Newtownabbey, Lisburn and Carryduff are viable, though the latter would include a long incline which would deter people on unassisted bicycles.

In my version of the Belfast Bicycle Network Plan Cyclesuperhighways have been included.

Community Greenways

A number of potential routes have been identified across Belfast that could act as Community Greenways. These are contained in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. They are shared use paths, although a more in-depth look reveals most routes are not set out with cycling in mind.

The Department’s plans include some of these, but as they are not designated for cycling, it would be hard to use these to grow cycling into double figures.

The same goes for the Lagan Towpath. It would be hard to grow this into a major cycling route carrying 4 to 5 times the current number of bicycle users without causing conflict with other path users. 

To grow cycling, designated cycle tracks need to be put in along arterial routes near to the Greenways and Towpath, with links from the Greenways to feed into the arterial route.

Copy and paste, replace “London” with “Belfast” and remove anything that costs too much money

How Belfast gained its plans is roughly following London’s LCDS and ignoring large bits of it. In short, the capital TfL planned its provision around a 400m by 400m grid. This was overlaid on a map and then pushed into place to fit existing roads, streets and cycle paths. These prospective routes are then assessed on safety, functionality, accessibility and a final coherent network is arrived at. One hopes. 

Like all things copied and pasted from existing GB schemes to NI schemes, some stuff just gets deleted. Isn’t that so, Arlene?

And what got deleted from the London scheme was putting in cycling provision along main roads, because that brings with it bothersome assessments of safety at junctions and consequently costly remedies to make junctions safe.

The Belfast plans were perhaps meant to be cheap and cheerful, effectively putting a sign beside an existing footpath, proclaiming it part of the Bicycle Network and so one more box can be ticked.

That is not good enough.

London’s experience shows that other than a few flagship routes and a couple of Mini-Hollands there is no coherent network to speak of. “Yet”, I add hopefully.

Belfast is much smaller, the population size of a typical London borough, but geographically more spread out. Which should make designing a coherent network easier.

Belfast Rapid Transit

Over the past year or so in this blog I have pointed out the deadening hand of the Belfast Rapid Transit scheme, stifling development of cycling across the city. In the Department’s plans the Newtownards Road and Falls Road have been abandoned as potential cycle network routes. Worse, the Department wishes to see BRT buses on more main arterial routes, driving a horse and cart through the Bicycle Strategy.

Most of Belfast’s arterial road grid is configured with 2×2 running lanes, with one lane set aside permanently for parking and a second lane designated partially as bus lane, but also acting as a car park outside peak hours.

In a city blighted by congestion, it is wasteful designating between 25 and 50% of road capacity to parking cars. Roads are for moving people, not for storing private property.

The parking space on arterial roads are effectively the Department for Infrastructure reserving space for BRT lanes. A bit like British holidaymakers in Majorca putting their towels on poolside sun loungers at the crack of dawn to annoy Germans.

Yet, I am in favour of the BRT. I wish to see quality designated cycle infrastructure beside it. And I wish both these modes of transport flourish for the good of Belfast. On our arterial roads that means one thing: restricting car use. Because cars are incredibly inefficient at moving people in urban areas.

Belfast can have BRT and have cycle paths, but should remove general traffic either partly, or entirely, from routes that should serve to move lots of people, quickly and efficiently. 

So here is my plan:

Blue: cycle superhighways; red: designated cycle paths; green: shared space. Black circles: roundabouts with protected space for cycling.

Should it boil down to a choice between a path along an arterial route or a shared space Greenway through a park, the arterial route should be built first.

If we are serious about cycling as a transport mode all main arterial routes must be reconfigured. A strip of on street parking or parking laybys must be sacrificed to accommodate cycle paths.

(BRT) bus lanes should take space from general traffic lanes. And should not enough space remain to accommodate private cars going in both directions, then the route should be made a one way, with a nearby arterial running the other way.

For example…

In that case the road layout could be changed like so:

Road works often give a sense of what space can be spared. This particular stretch of my evening commute is usually an illegal car park. It being coned off created no additional congestion.

Temporary road works showing where cycle paths can be built

And I hope the Department for Infrastructure take on board my criticism of their plans so Belfast can see this kind of thing also:

Slow Road to Lisburn

It was reported recently Belfast’s Lisburn Road is the most congested road in the UK outside London in the evening rush hour. Similarly, Ormeau Road is one of UK’s most congested roads in the morning.

Belfast also regularly features at or near the top of the table of most congested UK cities.

Inrix estimate congestion causes £30 billion worth of damage to the UK economy, or nearly £1000 per driver. This seems well over the top. The Telegraph put a more realistic £4.3 billion bill for congestion annually, which works out at around £30 million annually in Greater Belfast.

(Coincidentally, the cost of 12 monthly rail tickets for travel between Lisburn and Belfast Great Victoria Street is £1000.)

Inrix, who put together the congestion data make alarming suggestions that without investment in road upgrades Belfast will choke on traffic. But beyond headlines and a call for investment in more and bigger roads, Inrix offer nothing that helps urban planners. At best their figures are an indicator something is not working.

Local headlines are not any more trustworthy: Belfast Telegraph claim the city’s worsening congestion problem is

blamed on factors like segregated cycle lanes and poorly-planned roadworks.

The Lisburn Road between Methodist College in Belfast and Wallace Park in Lisburn which Inrix have crowned most congested outside London has no segregated cycle lanes along the entire stretch of road. None.

So, it must be those poorly planned road works.

Or could it be something else? Such as too many people using cars for short urban journeys all at the same time?


In 2014 16910 cars a day passed the counter at Dunluce Avenue with a maximum of 1310 cars an hour at 5pm countrybound. The morning peak is 1280 citybound. At King’s Hall 19670 cars are counted citybound with a peak of 1670 in the morning. There is no data there for countrybound traffic. At Derriaghy 9710 cars pass the counter daily, with a morning peak citybound of 790, an evening peak of 800. At Lambeg it is busier than Derriaghy with 14750, with peaks of 1310 in the morning and evening.

Not desperately huge. A principal route between two towns should be able to cope with traffic volume. Many roads have far higher traffic numbers, but cope very well.


Lisburn Road used to be a toll road which rivalled the older and hillier Malone Road slightly to the east. The toll booth was at what is now Tollgate House in Bradbury Place. In 1858 tolls were abandoned. The Belfast to Lisburn railway runs parallel to the road, crossing over the road at Derriaghy halt.

Tollgate House on the site of the original toll house (Google)

Development along the route took off in the late 1800s at the height of the industrial boom and continues to this day with new housing developments encroaching on the last remaining green field between Belfast and Lisburn, used currently as a BMX track.

The road is home to numerous shops, but especially between King’s Hall and Lisburn residential developments dominate.

Strategic road?

The A1 is part of NI’s strategic road network, but only for the section between Sprucefield near Lisburn and the Irish border. Between Belfast and Lisburn the strategic role is reserved for the M1.

The European Union don’t talk of strategic roads, but of corridors, the total bundle of roads, railways and waterways between two places. Belfast sits at the northwestern end of a corridor stretching, by way of Dublin, across Europe to Marseille on the Mediterranean coast.

Whilst Brexit need not stand in the way of EU funding of connections between Dublin and the European mainland across England and Wales (similar to EU funding transalpine routes in Switzerland), the EU might not be so willing to provide funding for A1 and M1 upgrades in NI post Brexit, or indeed upgrades in Scotland and the north of England.

Taking on congestion in Belfast will require serious funding as Inrix suggest. But not solely on our roads as they would like, but across the whole bundle of road and rail connections between central Belfast, suburbs, the commuter belt and beyond. After Brexit it remains to be seen if there is any political will or money to improve Belfast’s transport infrastructure.

So, yes, the Lisburn Road is strategic but as part of the whole bundle of connections between Lisburn and Belfast. And resolving the congestion problem will need to take into account rail, motorway, local roads and Lagan Towpath.

Improving the Lisburn Road will mean investing in the entire corridor.

Local access or car park?

In 2013 the Department of Regional Development introduced a scheme to improve traffic flow. The Department deemed the tidal parking restrictions a success and traders were happy, because customers could park outside their shop at any time of the day.

The changes were made permanent in 2014.

And less than 3 years after the trial started congestion is said to be worst in the UK outside London. I called it a failure even earlier, because of persistent illegal parking.

TransportNI have yet to make use of their power to tow illegally parked cars. In the meantime enforcement of restrictions by issuing fines is haphazard. The threat of fines is not enough to deter habitual offenders. And obviously a car with a ticket is still causing an obstruction to traffic flow.

Confused traders

Traders need their shops to be accessible to customers. They also don’t want to see them sitting in traffic jams, you’d assume.

Belfast on the Move is a steategy aimed at increasing access to Belfast City Centre. That’s a good thing, no? Belfast Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) have been opposed to Belfast on the Move from the very start. They see the strategy which has delivered a drop in numbers of cars, an increase in number of people accessing the city centre, increase in numbers of public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians, an increase in number of cars parking and people staying longer, an increase in footfall and takings as detrimental to small businesses.

It stands to reason that any plans to alleviate Lisburn Road congestion by removing cars or even car parking spaces will meet with opposition from trader organisations, despite their trade and the wider economy suffering from economic damage caused by congestion.

The FSB complain about congestion harming trade and at the same time that Belfast was becoming a “very hostile place to bring your car”. They fail to see that making it easier for drivers to access Belfast, the more congested it becomes.

Politicians and traders need to learn that plentiful parking does not equal high footfall. Instead, parking is an invitation to drive and increases congestion. Belfast City Council have recognised this in their Parking Strategy.

Any solutions?

Before he went rogue, Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard, said:

“Investing in public transport, walking and cycling must be at the heart of our transport policy.  It is the only way we can address congestion in our key urban centres, enable people and goods to move easily and ensure the north remains an attractive place to live, work, shop, visit and invest.”

Minister Hazzard announced the Department for Infrastructure’s 3-five-10 strategy. The quote above is from the press release. The strategy’s aim is to increase active travel and public transport and reduce car dependence for short local journeys.

Part of the Lisburn Road’s problems stem from confusion about its function. The road serves as a through route for Belfast to Lisburn traffic, a road to give access to residential areas and businesses and also acts as a car park.

It would be better to unravel these roles, decide on the primary function of the A1 route and remove all other traffic to a better suited road or space.

Congestion beating measures should offer people a choice of means to get to their destination. Ideally, walking, cycling and public transport should be cheaper, faster and more convenient than use of a private vehicle.

For the Lisburn Road from Black’s Road Park and Ride to Bradbury Place the 3-five-10 strategy to reduce congestion should be employed. 

Some ideas for improvement:

  • Between Bradbury Place and King’s Hall the road should be transformed to move people, giving clear priority for active travel and public transport.
  • Bus lanes must run continuously from Black’s Road to Shaftesbury Square. Allowing the single traffic lane to splay into two, before merging them again into one soon after, causes congestion.
  • A continuous cycleway must be built along the entire length of road from Belfast to Lisburn.
  • To allow for bus lane and cycleway installation on-road parking must be removed.
  • Reduce the number of interactions at junctions by putting bollards across minor side roads, having more side roads made one way, and banning right turns for all but a handful of junctions.

  • Belfast Bikes should expand further up Lisburn Road with docking stations at 300 to 400m intervals.
  • Capacity at Black’s Road Park and Ride must be increased, with perhaps slip roads from and to the M1 built to serve the Park and Ride only to enable more drivers to leave their cars at the edge of town.
  • An additional railway halt to be built at Black’s Road to allow people to park and continue by rail, but also provide better access to public transport to residents of Black’s Road.
  • Adelaide halt must be made fully accessible for wheelchair bound passengers, mums with prams and train passengers wheeling luggage or bicycles. Currently, footbridges to Lisburn Road and Apollo Road are stepped, not ramped.

    People fear the bath tub effect that closing off or reducing a road’s capacity will inevitably lead to traffic overflowing and causing congestion chaos elsewhere. In practice a significant portion of traffic ceases to exist.


    The Lisburn Road passes through areas with very divergent cycling uptake. From Finaghy down to the city centre cycling commuters make up between 3 and 5% of total traffic. Above Finaghy this rapidly drops to nearly 0%. (2011 census via NIGreenways).

    In order to reduce the number of cars on the road cycling needs to be enabled better in outlying districts. A designated cycleway with priority over side roads running along the Lisburn Road from central Belfast to Lisburn town centre will offer people a choice to leave the car at home.

    Combining a cycleway with meaningful numbers of secure bicycle storage areas at railway halts and principal bus stops will enable people to use various modes for their journeys to suit the journey’s purpose or destination.

    The Lisburn Road also serves as a refuge for bicycle users when the Lagan Towpath is not rideable due to frost or flooding. The lack of lighting along the Towpath also is off-putting to some. The main drawback, however, of the Towpath is its meandering, scenic nature. It adds considerably to time and distance over the direct route to and from work using the Lisburn Road. 

      The bitter pill

      Through traffic should be pushed to the M1 as much as possible. Drivers should be deincentivised from going along the A1 from end to end.

      This could be done by nudging behaviour with information boards showing actual travel times. For instance a sign at Shaftesbury Square could inform drivers going to Finaghy using the Lisburn Road that it would take, for instance, 20 minutes, choosing Donegall Road and M1 could be 15 minutes.

      A way to reduce peak congestion is road pricing. Charge people for using the most congested roads at busiest times and soon they will adapt their behaviour. A city centre car park levy could be used to fund initiatives to strengthen public transport, walking and cycling along the route.

      Let the train take the strain

      It is not sensible to look in isolation at roads, when part of the answer is literally next door, its potential unfulfilled because of chronic underfunding in favour investment in roads.

      Major investment is needed to allow a Metro style railway service between Lisburn across Belfast to Bangor. Instead of at best an half-hourly service, trains should run at 10 minute intervals (or less) and get the commuter from Lisburn to Belfast in less time than it takes to go by car when roads are quiet.

      Electrification may be needed to achieve such levels of service. A useful template are German S-Bahn or Dutch RandstadRail networks of local rapid transit: turn Lisburn-Bangor rail into a LUAS-style light rail, taking it off the main line in places to allow passengers easier access and give priority on the main line for regional and Enterprise services.

      Electrification and phasing out diesel is urgently needed from an environmental perspective. Air pollution and global warming concerns mean continued reliance on diesel is irresponsible. Electrification of the Dublin to Belfast main line must be pushed higher up the political agenda.


      The Lisburn Road suffers from chronic congestion, not  simply because of a large number of vehicles, but because many drivers with different purposes use the same stretch of road. The road has many junctions and on-street parking leading to many interactions across lanes of traffic. Bus lanes are inconsistent and poorly enforced. Cycling infrastructure is non existent despite the road going through areas with relatively large numbers of cycle commuters. The adjacent railway is underfunded, and poorly equipped to serve as an alternative.

      To alleviate congestion the Department for Infrastructure’s 3-five-10 strategy needs to be applied and funded to enable greater uptake of walking, cycling and use of bus and rail. The cost could be recouped by introducing road pricing, or a city centre parking levy, or even better, both.

      Belfast Bicycle Network Plan

      The Belfast Bicycle Network Plan is currently out for consultation. Delighted I opened the pdf. And from there on in my mood wavered between anger, despair and hysterical laughing.

      I think these plans are a failure; a failure to capitalise on the momentum for cycling in Belfast; a failure to correct the mistakes in the Alfred Street and Durham Street paths.

      It is as if the people who wrote their vision for the network and those who set out the routes never shared a room, let alone a vision.

      The plans as presented are a waste of time. I am asking the Department for Infrastructure to withdraw it and think how better to design for those who currently daren’t or can’t cycle.

      The document asks 17 questions and I will attempt to answer them.

      Question 1: Do you agree that producing a Bicycle network for Belfast is an important element of developing a more bicycle-friendly city? What timeframe do you think it should cover?

      The network is crucial in making Belfast more bicycle-friendly. The current infrastructure, or more precisely lack of infrastructure, is a major block to growing the modal share for cycling beyond 5%. The recent growth in cycling has been achieved with next no involvement from government. Very little budget (£1.30 pppa) was allocated and only a few short new cycle tracks were built.

      Belfast cyclists remain overly reliant on bus lanes, shared pavement and advisory cycle lanes. Sustrans in their Bike Life survey found that bus lanes were not considered safe or conducive to cycle more.

      The perceived feeling of insecurity caused by the proximity of large vehicles is not improved by the decision by the outgoing Minister Chris Hazzard to allow private hire vehicles into the city’s Rapid Transit bus lanes.

      B U S spells bicycle. Typical Belfast cycle lane with a taxi in it.

      The network as set out in this document and amended after the consultation should be built within a 5 year timescale. Some quick wins can be achieved by bringing existing provisions included in the new plan up to highest standards. A 10 year timescale is perhaps required only where large capital schemes are involved, for instance to cross the Lagan at the Gasworks.

      A brake on developing cycling in Belfast

      Adoption of this strategy in its current form would push the building of highly necessary paths along arterial roads beyond a 10 year timeframe. This will put a brake on development of cycling in Belfast. 

      It has to be noted Rotterdam (admittedly from a much better starting position) has set itself a 2 year target on delivering a much improved network of paths. Their plan includes improving accessibility across the city core, improving bicycle traffic flow and making safe numerous paths and junctions.

      This strategy must be delivered in a 2 to 5 year timeframe.

      Question 2: Do you agree that these five criteria from the BMTP are still valid for the development of a network for Belfast? If not, what do you consider the criteria should be? Please explain.

      Yes. But.

      Like many estates planned in the latter half of the 20th Century Rathcoole Estate in Newtownabbey is blessed with a considerable network of off-road paths. Most of these are designated footways. These footways are used by cyclists as a safe alternative to a hostile car-centred road environment.

      A major nearby destination is the Abbeycentre shopping complex. It can be reached on foot or by bike using the network of paths without having to use any major roads.

      A number of links exist to the NCN Shore path. With better signposting and fixing crossings on the A2 Shore Road a cyclist can travel from their home in Rathcoole to their employer’s in the Harbour, City Centre or beyond without needing to share with cars on main roads.

      The local network of paths and the way it connects to destinations should be inspiration for the bicycle network across Belfast. It should give door-to-door opportunities for active travel, an alternative to going by car.

      But what about the children?

      In the Netherlands most children cycle to school, preparing for a continuation of a healthy life choice into adult life. They can because infrastructure enables them to cycle, often unaccompanied, without safety concerns. 

      Similarly, libraries, hospitals and health centres should be easily accessible by a network path, enabling service users of all ages access to vital community services.

      NIGreenways has already pointed out the poor overlap between the planned network paths and location of schools. The proportion of children cycling to school is firmly stuck at 0%. This is a scandal, and should be top of politicians’ agendas.

      The planned network doesn’t just miss out schools, it also does not allow direct access to major destinations in the Greater Belfast area. For instance, there is no planned direct link between the new Transport Hub to the Royal Victoria Hospital along Grosvenor Road, instead preferring a detour along the noisy, polluted and people-hostile Westlink.

      Similarly, cyclists from southwest Belfast and Lisburn will face lengthy detours to reach the Belfast City Hospital or the Queen’s University campus using network paths. The plans from the outset sacrifice the core principle of directness.

      The city’s local shopping areas are poorly served by the network. Bicycle lanes have been shown to boost business where they have been installed. It is difficult to see how the network in its proposed form will generate economic benefit for Belfast traders.

      Arterial routes

      What are missing, glaringly, are paths that run along arterial routes, where many Belfast retailers and businesses are found. 

      Currently, Belfast is groaning under the weight of congestion. Belfast’s Lisburn Road is said to be the most congested road in the UK, outside London, in the evening rush hour. Similarly, Ormeau Road is most congested in the morning.

      Previously I set out a few ideas of what can be done on the Lisburn Road to reduce congestion. The Department for Infrastructure introduced the 3-five-10 strategy to enable more to walk, cycle and use public transport. Cycling will not be a credible alternative to car users on the Malone Road or Lisburn Road if the nearest network paths are the Lagan Towpath or along Boucher Road over half a mile away.

      It is my opinion that a designated cycleway with priority over side roads running along the Lisburn Road from central Belfast to Lisburn town centre will offer people a choice to leave the car at home.

      Combine it with meaningful numbers of secure bicycle storage areas at railway halts and principal bus stops will enable people to use various modes for their journeys.

      Other arterial routes will also benefit from having high quality designated cycle paths alongside. 

      It is laudable that a large proportion of Belfast households are designed to be within 400m of a network path. Except that many homes nearby the network do not have easy access.


      The map is very simplistic and appears to count number of households within 400m of a path. Consider the Comber Greenway. It is built along the old Belfast and Co. Down railway line. It has few access points. The railway line was not meant to interact with local streets much. Properties in, for instance, King’s Park Lane back onto the line, but to access it residents must walk or cycle 640m to the entrance beside Knock police headquarters.

      Similarly, residents in Edenderry at the very southern edge of Belfast, can see the Lagan Towpath from their front step, literally a stone’s throw. But to access it directly with anything other than a lightweight bike is practically impossible due to the stepped bridge across the Lagan and narrow chicane of fencing at the village entrance. It is a 1.2km ride to the next nearest accessible entrance at Shaw’s Bridge.

      It would better to count the households within 400m of an access point that enables bicycle users of all ages and abilities to use the network, and it is my guess that suddenly the map doesn’t look so good.

      Question 3: Do you agree that the development of a Belfast Bicycle network is a key element in giving those who would like to cycle (but currently don’t) the freedom and confidence to do so?

      Yes. The Belfast Bicycle network, if built and maintained to high standard and not compromised to accommodate pedestrians, mopeds and motorcycles, cars, taxis or buses, will provide an environment where those who currently don’t cycle to go out without worry about their personal safety.

      Question 4: Do you agree that the objectives in 3.9 should be applied to the network? If not, what objectives do you think should be set?

      Here are those objectives:

      Firstly, it is good that the objectives concentrate on commuters, amenity and leisure cyclists. We currently see on Belfast roads hard core year round commuters and lycra clad racers. Amenity cyclists are poorly catered for.

      There is no specific mention of age and ability in the objectives. It needs to be clear that the network will be designed to guarantee the safety of children cycling unaccompanied to school and those in the latter stages of life, vulnerable to falls, out for a leisurely ride on an e-bike.

      The network should be accessible and near to all people within Belfast; to people of all ages and abilities, those who currently cycle those who currently daren’t or can’t.

      For amenity cyclists it is necessary the network goes near amenities, such as shops, schools, libraries and health centres. If the path leaves you far from your intended destination is it of any use? It would be good to see the map of routes redrawn to include as many shops, schools, libraries, leisure centres, hospitals and health centres as possible.

      Consistent high quality provision

      What makes cycling in the Netherlands such a pleasure is that the network of paths is of high standard throughout large parts of the country. This standard follows guidelines and design principles set out in the Fietsberaad CROW manual. Vigorously applying the same high standard throughout the Belfast network should ensure cyclists are not left to fend for themselves on 60mph dual carriagewaysroundabouts and junctions.


      In London Quietways have been set out, apparently without much regard for existing traffic volume or taking measures to reduce traffic volume along the route. It leaves bicycle users navigating their way through streets busy with HGVs and along ratruns. 

      Modal filtering, keeping certain vehicle types out of streets where cyclists have priority, must be included to reduce traffic volume and speed in order to make Quietways work.

      Repeating mistakes

      In Hackney streets have been made calm and more liveable through permeable filtering. Walking and cycling in becalmed areas is a joy. Where Hackney fails, and fails badly, is ensuring cyclists’ safety along main traffic corridors. There have been fatalities especially along main roads. Hackney also has a worrying high level of hit and runs.

      Bicycle users, of any kind, are choosing main roads over back streets because they want to traverse an area rapidly to get to their destination, or need to visit amenities along the main road.

      This network plan leaves Belfast in danger of repeating London and Hackney’s mistakes. It potentially sends cyclists down ratruns, along roads where cars dominate and where they are offered little protection.

      Another mistake is the use of coloured paint to mark cycle provision. In London slippery paint has been implicated in the death of a motorcyclist and numerous less serious falls. In the Netherlands coloured tarmac is used:

      The use of the words encourage and promote grates. If the network is consistently of high standard, accessible and attractive to use, encouragement and promotion is superfluous. Make the network a better and cheaper alternative to car use and people will start using it.

      Question 5: Do you agree that the primary network should be based on the concept of arterial and orbital routes?

      Yes. But. 

      Not the arterial routes set out in the plan, but instead following the main traffic or Metro corridors in the city. With modification the network of routes as set out in this document can act as a secondary network reaching into the heart of neighbourhoods.

      Last resort

      Many of the proposed routes follow the Community Greenway footpaths set out in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (2015). Considerable adaptation and financial commitment is needed to make these Community Greenway routes usable for cyclists. And shared use paths, such as Community Greenways should be a last resort, when no designated space for cycling can be safely fitted in along main arterial roads.

      Belfast bicycle users on the route of the proposed Community Greenway between Shaw’s Bridge and Whiterock

      Question 6: Do you agree that the network should be developed in Primary and Secondary stages as outlined in 3.13? If not, how should it be developed?

      Here are those two stages:

      No. Developing the network in this way is fundamentally wrong. The level of separation should be decided by size, speed and volume of traffic a road is carrying. And in turn the size, speed and volume of traffic is decided by the primary function of a road or street. 

      Trunk roads

      So, Belfast’s A55 ring road, a busy trunk route, should ideally have fully separated bidirectional cycle paths on both sides with grade separated crossings, so ensuring a minimal number of areas of conflict. The current provision is a long way off from this ideal.

      Segregated shared use path, A55 Belfast

      Paint separation on A55, Belfast

      Above is a trunk road, the N273, just south of Venlo in the Netherlands. Having bidirectional paths either side allows cyclists to get to their destination without having to cross the main road. The number of crossing points can be kept to a minimum.

      Local access

      At the other end of the scale, streets that only serve as access to properties can, with traffic calming and a 20mph speed limit enforced by road design make do without any segregation for cycling.

      No cycle path needed here, but still enabling 8-80 cycling

      In the picture above through traffic is kept to the main road in the background. A bidirectional cycle path leads cyclists safely underneath the provincial road. The path connects to the city centre and a cycle superhighway. The street in the foreground only allows motorised vehicles access to adjacent properties and has a 30 km/h (20mph) limit.

      Distributor roads

      Cycle path along Dutch distributor road (Cycling Embassy of Great Britain)

      On these distributor roads designated cycle space is needed, due to traffic volume, traffic speed and presence of HGV.

      Distributor roads allow joining up of local access streets and main trunk roads. They are busier than access roads and are often lined with businesses. They are not meant to carry traffic originating outside the area going to a destination somewhere else outside the area.

      Confusion and delay

      In Belfast these road functions are blurred. Distributor roads act as thoroughfares for regional traffic and vice versa. Worse, across the city quiet residential streets, access streets, are used by commuters to avoid certain junctions. These access streets then take on the role of a distributor or even a trunk road.

      This blurring of functions, mixing traffic users with differing intentions is one of the root causes congestion. It is better to disentangle these functions and so allow for more homogenous traffic flow.

      The primary function of a road, the dimensions, speed and volume of traffic must dictate the level of segregation needed.

      Question 7: Do you agree that we should consider requirements of likely users on a scheme by scheme basis, for example routes which will primarily be used by children on the school journey may be best served as shared track?

      No, design it right

      The entire scheme should offer users an expected level of quality throughout. Dutch experience shows commuters, schoolchildren and leisure cyclists of all ages and abilities can and do use the same paths to reach their destination. And people on roller blades, powerchairs, mobility scooters, etc:

      We don’t offer bespoke roads for certain groups of car drivers. Whether they are business users, commuters, shoppers or going out for a trip to the seaside they all use the same network and expect the same standard of provision throughout.

      Singling out a certain user group and making the cycle provision meet their specific requirements puts other cycling groups at a disadvantage. 

      St. Bride’s Primary School sits in between two major roads in South Belfast. Children from the surrounding area could cycle to school were a safe designated space for cycling provided. The two roads are also very popular with commuters to the nearby Queen’s University campus and Belfast City Hospital. Whose needs prevail?

      The answer is, of course, to design it right and children, commuters, leisure cyclists can all use the same designated bicycle space.

      Again, shared tracks should only be used as a last resort as they are inherently compromised to suit the divergent demands of different groups of road users.

      Question 8: Are there any other kinds of bicycle infrastructure that should be considered? What are they? Do you have any views on which types of infrastructure, if any, should be favoured in developing a network for Belfast?

      The document sets out how the Department will provide for cycling between junctions. It does not set out how cyclists will get across junctions.

      Firstly, any network path should clear priority over traffic on minor streets crossing it. This can be reinforced by making path and the footway beside it continuous.

      Continuous footway and cycle path, London (Cycling Embassy of Great Britain)

      A bus stop bypass is visible in the background. These should be included on all routes where they pass a bus stop.

      At junctions the path should should be set back from the main thoroughfare so that a turning vehicle can wait for cyclists to pass without obstructing the flow of traffic.

      Set back path at junction along N273 in Baarlo, Netherlands

      Currently, where there is provision, it ends before the cyclist gets to a junction or roundabout. At the junction or roundabout cyclists left to fend for themselves. Even on new infrastructure such as the Durham St path, the issue of junctions has been fudged with areas of shared space and strange transition arrangements.

      The Department needs to start providing junctions and roundabouts with in-built protection for cyclists. Belfast City Council, in their response to the Bicycle Strategy, wish to see Dutch roundabouts

      Missing from the plans are grade separated crossings across trunk roads. The plans feature reopening the tunnel on the Abbey Road (an access street) on the Comber Greenway, but do nothing at all on the A55 crossing beside Knock Police HQ. 

      At Broadway roundabout, a major hub for the planned routes, cyclists are forced to make use of 4, sometimes 5 separate button-controlled crossings. 

      For such busy junctions grade separated crossings for pedestrians and cyclists would be best.

      The roundabout’s design team however did not consider people cycling at all. They did not foresee a Belfast Bikes docking station being installed. They did not think cycling could become more important in Belfast. Now it’s built it is hard to see how cycling can be given a safe designated space without major investment. 

      Cyclists are left with poor infrastructure.

      Powerful commentary on the use of shared space below

      At Tillysburn there is an opportunity to do something great to replace the current glass-strewn bear pit. 

      Hovenring, Eindhoven, Netherlands

      Snelbinder cycling bridge, Naaldwijk, Netherlands

      Question 9: Do you support the use of the network requirements as detailed at paragraph 5.1?


      At every stage from planning to implementation to review the guiding principles of the network must remain central and constant. As our city and traffic evolves, so the network must evolve to meet user demand or deal with the challenge of, for instance, autonomous vehicles. The core principles should not be compromised or degraded as the network is built.

      Sadly, the Alfred Street path shows how in the period between design and completion these guiding principles were compromised, allowing motor vehicles to slip between wands and block the lane and not offering enough protection at junctions.

      Question 10: Do you agree with the addition of ‘Adaptability’ as a network requirement? What other requirements would you like to see included?

      Question 11: Do you agree that the routes should be planned and facilities designed with the achievement of increasing numbers of people cycling in mind?

      I’ll answer these as one question.

      Obviously, the network will need to built to accommodate the target volume of cycle traffic. The Bicycle Strategy sets a target of 20% of journeys under 1 mile and 10% of journeys between 1 and 2 miles for cycling.

      How Rotterdammers get around (Bike Portland)

      The targets set for Belfast are puzzling. The share for cycling in Rotterdam peaks at around 3 miles. Belfast’s cycling supposedly peaks below 2 miles. How does this sit with the NI Travel Survey?

      Cycling doesn’t register against walking and driving in Northern Ireland. Digging deeper into data reveals the peak of cycling journeys lies between 2 and 5 miles.

      And the average journey length is 5.1 miles.

      Humans in Rotterdam are not vastly different from those in Northern Ireland. Humans tire and for most walking more than 2 miles, or cycling more than 5 miles requires too much effort.

      The network should not be built for the current 0-5% of people who use bicycles regularly and then adapted to accommodate a greater number in 5 or 10 years time. It should be built to accommodate the target of 20% share from the outset.

      Look at how the cycling provision at Broadway roundabout has become set in concrete, with little room to grow cycling numbers on the far from adequate shared use space.

      If  adaptability is adopted as a core principle it should be so that cycling can grow and not be constrained by keeping the current state where cars utterly dominate Belfast streets. This requires new thinking at Department for Infrastructure, who thus far, even in writing this consultation document, are reluctant to remove road space from cars and redesignate as cycling space.

      Question 12: What are your views on segregation between people who walk, people who cycle and people who drive? What are your views about physical segregation between motorised traffic and non-motorised traffic? Do you agree that there are levels of traffic (footway or carriageway) below which physical segregation is not always necessary – such as quiet routes and residential areas?

      Sustainable Safety

      The underpinning thought of designing roads should be sustainable safety, so that an error by a road user will not have fatal consequences for themselves or others. 

      The second principle is hierarchy of control: where there is a risk, eliminate it; if it cannot be eliminated manage it (in descending order of effectiveness) by substitution, design, laws and education and if after all that a risk remains use personal protective equipment.

      On roads the risk of fatal and serious road traffic collisions is reduced by removing areas where cyclists and cars use the same space. Along busy roads and roads where traffic speed is 30mph or above and environments where there are more than average numbers of HGV separation is needed. This is not optional, it is a must to increase cycling numbers.

      If Belfast eyes a target of 20% share for cycling it will need to consider how this has an impact on current shared use provision. How will the crossing of the Lagan Towpath with the Ormeau Road look with 4-6 times the number of cyclists?

      An underpass will only partly reduce congestion at this point as many, if not most, cyclists use the footpath to cross the bridge. 

      One Path to conflict 

      Already, there are numerous incidents along the Towpath and Comber Greenway. To reduce these Sustrans have introduced the One Path initiative to share the paths. Or to put it in other words: on shared use paths we are already in trouble when cycling has an overall modal share of 3-5%. What will this be like if cycling achieves a 4-fold increase?

      Hierarchy of control dictates that an education exercise won’t be very effective and separating cyclists and pedestrians will work better to avoid conflict.

      Below is a picture of the Ruhr Cycle Superhighway being built near Mülheim in Germany. It shows clear separation between the pedestrian path on the right and the smooth wide tarmac for cyclists on the left.

      Ruhr Radschnellweg 1 under construction at Mülheim (VelocityRuhr)

      As shown before, on quiet residential streets there is no need for separation, provided traffic speed is 20mph or below and traffic volume is low. The best way to achieve good conditions for 8-80 cycling is to consistently stop ratrunning and designing roads to self-enforce a 20mph speed limit.

      Again, calming traffic by road design and clarifying an access street’s purpose by removing ratrunning vehicles is not optional, it’s a necessity to enable 8-80 cycling.

      Question 13: How important is the requirement that ‘routes need to flow’? What kind of signage should be provided? What facilities should be provided?

      The paths should be easily recognisable as cycle paths to stop drivers erring into them. And cyclists will more easily follow a clearly set out trail. This is best done by using coloured tarmac. 

      Wayfinding has to be simple and straightforward with dedicated clearly legible signage. Different routes could have their own colour or theme to improve recognition. 

      Tourists will use these paths so signage should be simple to understand to non-English speakers, perhaps showing amenities as pictograms rather than words.

      Pictograms used at Dutch railway stations

      Additional facilities: increase number of cycle racks along routes, especially near shops, libraries and health centres. The plans recognise the paucity of secure bike racks in Belfast. Bicycle hangars could be placed in inner city neighbourhoods to enable people to securely store their bicycles when their homes have no available cycle storage space. Already mentioned are secure bike lock-ups at bus route termini principal bus stops and railway halts.

      Public bicycle pumps and bicycle repair tools could be placed at various locations for those who need to carry out a quick roadside repair.

      Bicycle counters must be placed at a number of locations to show that the paths are being used and numbers of cyclists are growing.

      Question 14: What is the relative importance between construction of a route and its maintenance? What other guiding principles would you suggest? Please explain.

      This is not a question. The built network needs to be maintained. Lights need to work, rain must not cause flooding. Clearing snow and gritting when it’s frosty should be done to prevent falls and enable year round cycling. 

      Question 15: With reference to the appendices please set out your views on the proposed routes. We are interested in the positives or negatives associated with the various sections of the proposed routes.

      Question 16: What are the specific issues that may arise if bicycle infrastructure was constructed along the proposed route?

      Question 17: What other alternative routes are available?

      With so many fundamental errors in these plans it would seem nitpicking to lift out pros and cons within each scheme. However, they asked the question:

      The main positive points:

      • Provided the segregation is up to highest standard and junctions and roundabout offer protection to cyclists a path along Boucher Road connecting the Lisburn Road at Balmoral and the Royal Victoria Hospitals will be of great benefit to staff and service users of the Royal, but also allow better access to the Boucher retail area, home to two bicycle shops.
      • The proposed Route 1 between Holywood and Holywood Exchange to central Belfast will give commuters from Holywood an alternative to the car, but also allow leisure cycling from Belfast to Bangor along the North Down Coastal Path.
      • The A55 route will knit together the current paths of varying standard.

      Even as you start summing up the positives the negatives come crowding to the fore:

      • The near total disregard of main arterial routes, lack of directness and poor connections between residential areas and amenities. Designing for failure.
      • The reliance on sharing space with pedestrians on almost every proposed route. Designing for conflict.
      • The lack of grade separated crossings across Belfast’s Outer Ring. Designing for death.

      What do these routes look like in winter, after 7pm, or before dawn? Many routes pass through gates which are shut as early as 4:30pm. Are path users to be abandoned, with literally nowhere to go? 

      And you do wonder at what stage of the night and however many cups of coffee it seemed like a good idea to send cyclists up a road with an 19% incline:

      Profile of Beechill Road (Route 4 East)

      Middlepath Street bicycle path consultation

      The Department for Infrastructure is consulting on their proposal for a cycle path along Middlepath Street. On Bikefast Jonathan has done an excellent analysis of the plans.

      One area where the current plans are a let down is the use of shared space to feed the path through the limited span of the Bangor railway line.

      This could be an area of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. I do not think enough has been done to resolve the issue. 

      Across Belfast shared space has been used to fudge areas of conflict. We see it at both ends of the Alfred/Arthur Street cycle path and at either end of Durham Street.
      Will the Department use coloured tarmac, signs or lines to nudge pedestrians and cyclists to pass without conflict on the dark, narrow footpath?

      I propose a bolder solution. The slip road coming off the M3 starts out as a two lane road.

      Before the signalised junction it splays out to four lanes. These lanes, eventually, split completely at the junction with the Newtownards Road, where the left hand set of lanes peel off.
      What if we only allow the two lanes to splay to three before the Middlepath Street junction and use the space for the cycle path? After the railway bridge sufficient space exists to go to four lanes, the cycle path and a separate footpath by using a strip of the adjacent grassed area.

      Cyclists could go on the road side of the pillars, as viewed in the screenshot above, pedestrians to the right of the pillars.

      This would be bold. Taking space from Middlepath Street will be relatively easy compared to taking space from a Motorway slip road. But what better way to announce to drivers coming off the M3 that on Belfast’s streets they are not the only road users.

      It probably won’t get done at this stage, but there is no harm in suggesting it.