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.

      The bit in between

      NICE released a d(r)aft consultation on combating traffic related air pollution. It was widely misreported across the media.

      One of the more lurid headlines came from the Telegraph, a bastion of anti-science. 

      The NICE report is very weak on this. Indeed, they felt compelled to put out this statement:

      The committee looking at the matter found only weak evidence from 2 Dutch studies, so the recommendation is only desirable.

      There still is a problem with the recommendation.

      Speed bumps force motorists to slow down. What they don’t do is force motorists to speed up. They are not meant to. 

      Motorists speed up after a speed bump because the road in between is designed to driven down at 30mph or more. 

      Typically, speed bumps appear for 2 reasons: firstly, to cut drivers’ speed near a school or in a residential neighbourhood; secondly, to make a street less attractive to ratrunning.

      The road where the speed bumps were installed was most likely a 30mph road beforehand. It probably features corners with wide radii, all optimised to move cars quickly.

      Look at thon flares…

      The junction above has speed bumps on each of its three arms. But drivers quickly speed up in between, because it has corners you’ll more likely find at Brand’s Hatch. It is the road design that induces fast driving.

      Putting in speed bumps is pointless if the road in between does not induce slower speeds. If that junction had tight corners, then drivers would drive more slowly. With chicanes, alternative road surfaces a slower speed is induced. 

      And all things considered cars going at 20mph or less in residential areas is much better for everyone concerned.

      Cycle routes

      The report makes another recommendation regarding where cycle routes should be sited:

      1.5.1 Avoid siting cycle routes on highly polluted roads. Ideally use off-road routes or quiet streets. 

      1.5.2 Where busy roads are used consider: 

      • Providing as much space as possible between the cyclist and motorised vehicles. 
      • Using dense foliage to screen cyclists from motor vehicles, without 
      • reducing street ventilation so that air pollution can disperse. 
      • Reducing the time cyclists spend at busy sites, including some junctions, where this can be done without increasing the time that other groups spend exposed to poor air quality.

      I’m all for quiet routes if only they went somewhere and afforded the cyclist a safe environment to cycle in. At present UK quietways are generally a normal street with some modal filtering at best, often merely a recommended route with no dedicated cycle infrastructure. And they tend to give up when traffic is busier. Hackney in London is a prime example.

      The motivation for this recommendation is weak:

      The committee was aware from members’ own experience that air pollution concerns were among the factors putting some people off cycling.

      The Sustrans Cycle to Work Survey said:

      Even if all 281 respondents who said “Other” meant concern about air pollution that still pales into nothing compared to the 3723 who said “Distance” or “Safety”.

      To be fair, had air pollution been an option some would have picked it.

      Elephant in the Room

      The main problem with the report is its addressing symptoms, not the root cause. The root cause is the number of  polluting vehicles on our roads. The measures in the report amount to mitigating the effects of polluting traffic. 

      NICE fail to adequately address that our cities are designed for moving people by cars, where commuting by another means is not or very poorly planned for. Belfast is such a city.

      This week, Belfast has once again found itself at the top of an unwelcome table:

      (Illustrated with a picture of York Street.)

      The answer lies not in using screening foliage, though it would be nice way to stop motorists encroaching on cycleways. It lies in getting people out of cars, by improving access for public transport, for walking and cycling. 

      It is better for us (improved health), for our city (liveability), our region (economically) and our world (climate change).

      There is no alternative; Chris Hazzard, NI Minister for Infrastructure says:

      “Moving people in and out of Belfast city is good for business; moving cars is not.

      What are we to do after York Street? Are we to bulldoze half of Great Victoria Street because we need two extra lanes in Great Victoria Street? Are we to demolish Belfast City Hall because we need a bigger roundabout at Belfast City Hall?

      We need to talk about moving people, not cars, in and out of Belfast.”



      Stranmillis Roundabout in South Belfast is used as an alternative route for commuting cyclists accessing the Towpath in winter when the Botanical Gardens are closed.

      It also serves as a route from the residential areas of Stranmillis to the Towpath. A nearby desire line bears this out:

      The roundabout has 5 arms, clockwise from the north: Stranmillis Road (N), Stranmillis Embankment, Lockview Road, Stranmillis Road (W) and the entrance to Stranmillis College.


      The roundabout is a standard UK circle with two rings, a central island and has zebra crossings across all the arms. There are 2 bus stops: just north of the college gates for city bound Metro services and at the start of Stranmillis Road (W) for outbound services.

      A small Belfast City Council run car park is situated between Stranmillis Road  (N) where you also find a bottle bank.

      The area to the south is mainly residential with a few small business at Lockview Road, including 5a, a cycling themed café. To the west is the Stranmillis College estate; the Lagan to the east and Stranmillis village and Queen’s University to the north.

      The roundabout has no dedicated space for cycling. Stranmillis Road has a painted cycle lane, but this stops well short of the circle.

      Space for cycling ends here (Google)

      There is a short shared use path from the roundabout along Stranmillis Embankment towards the Lagan. A marked crossing takes cyclists to the segregated path on the other side of the Embankment. Most cyclists ignore the shared use path and instead cycle down to the river on the footpath on the other side of the road and follow the track used by the cyclist in the photo above.

      The circle has been the scene of a number of collisions involving cyclists:

      Each dot is a collision involving a cyclist

      Read more here.

      Because it is directly adjacent to one of Belfast’s busiest cycle routes the roundabout’s layout should be altered to accommodate cycling.

      We can make the circle safer by making it look a bit like this “monstrosity”. (Like calling a lifebuoy at a scenic seaside beauty spot an eye sore.)

      It’s European, so therefore it’s mad, bad and dangerous to know, even if it saves lives…

      For a more detailed report see the TRL report (pdf) and the view of the LCC here.

      In real life a Dutch roundabout looks like this one at Laaghuissingel in Venlo, where cycling has a modal share of ~30%:

      Roundabout with priority for cyclists in Venlo

      Going around in circles, going nowhere fast
      Currently Stranmillis roundabout is set up to improve traffic flow. In contrast, continental designs of roundabouts have road user safety in mind.

      The most significant change would be reduction in number of lanes approaching the circle, and reducing the circling lanes from two to one.

      Maximum traffic levels for 3 types of roundabout

      At Stranmillis there is an over-provision of vehicle space. Most of the day the circle is quiet. At rush hour the roads in the area grind to a halt. Either way, the present circle is not meeting needs.

      The traffic levels in Stranmillis fall within the first category: a roundabout with one circling lane and single approaches should suffice. The area sees a peak flow of approximately 1400 vehicles per hour, and 14,000 vehicles a day.

      There are significant numbers of pedestrians and cyclists using the circle, due to its proximity to the University, Stranmillis College and the Towpath.

      For what it’s worth here’s the Strava heat map:

      At present northbound traffic is split between two lanes, which past the roundabout are merged on Stranmillis Embankment. Why? The merging causes delays for traffic leaving the area. It is an area of conflict between drivers, and it should not surprise most collisions involving cyclists are here.

      Car culture

      Reducing vehicle traffic space will increase available space for pedestrians and cyclists. More space can be found by realigning the arms and make the entries and exits less flared.

      (TRL 2015)

      Reducing vehicle space is something guaranteed to raise hackles within the NI Department of Infrastructure. Despite the pro-cycling leadership proposals to reduce speed limits, impose filtered permeability, bung up rat runs, remove vehicle access, etc are met with Departmental opposition.

      Typical Response from Department of Infrastructure

      If we want to grow cycling in Belfast we need to rearrange our road space, and start thinking about moving people rather than vehicles. So more bus lanes, not fewer and segregated safe space for cycling along main arterial roads.

      Belfast City Council in their response to NI Bicycle Strategy Draft welcome “Dutch style roundabouts”


      Other roundabouts in south and east Belfast where cyclist will benefit from a re-design are Ormeau:


      And Belmont:

      And away from Belfast’s cycling heartland, Carlisle Circus:

      And what are Dutch roundabouts like for cyclists?


      Blocked by HGV

      Seamus doesn’t like me. Probably, because of my tweeting things like this:


      The FTA in NI are proud of their initiative to send HGV drivers into Belfast on their bicycles. It is a good initiative, facilitated by Sustrans.

      No surprise then that River Ridge Recycling won a prestigious road safety award in September ’16. Well done!

      You might consider working for such a fine company:

      But there’s a problem. Look at the photos. River Ridge Recycling operate mainly in urban areas, with vehicles fitted with standard cabs and lacking guard rails.


      No guard rails

      So I asked Seamus how it came about that a company that operates a fleet of vehicles unsuited to an urban environment could win a road safety prize. Where are the cabs that allow a driver to see pedestrians and cyclists directly? Why does it not operate vehicles like these:

      Belfast City Council bin lorry

      The FTA in NI have long argued that road deaths, drivers and vehicles breaching regulations are down to a few rogue operators; that the majority operate within the law.
      This is what RSA Ireland found:

      Quite apart from the aforementioned 56% of HGV drivers who drive whilst using mobiles.

      The industry and its representatives have a choice. Either, address road safety issues by, for a start, removing unsafe vehicles from our streets, arguing for stricter fines and punishments for operators who break the laws and adopting safer lorry designs.

      Or block people on Twitter.

      Still No Space For Cycling Here

      Following on from a Facebook post where cyclists were informed of road works on Albertbridge Road to facilitate the Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) bus system, I queried what improvement this represented for Belfast cyclists.

      BRT team responded stating that no space could be spared for cyclists, but omitted to say that local residents can still use the existing parking bays along the road. In short, space cannot be spared because drivers need it to store their cars.

      The plans are available here.

      Cyclists in East Belfast can look forward to a painted cycle lane running not quite the length of Albertbridge Road from Templemore Avenue to Newtownards Road. A couple of Advanced Stop Lines and that is it.

      City bound cyclists can use the rapid transit bus lane.

      I put in a request to the Department of Infrastructure where I asked the following:

      • The terms and references of the initial BRT consultation pertaining the impact on cycling along BRT routes;
      • A summary of the assessed impact of BRT on cycling as part of the consultation;
      • Whether contact was sought with cycling stakeholders (for instance, Sustrans, British Cycling or Cycling UK) regarding cycling specific design and implementation of the BRT scheme;
      • Whether the impact on cycling has been reassessed since the consultation exercises given the increase in numbers of cyclists, the building of the BBNP, and the implementation of the Belfast Bikes hire scheme – the date(s) and outcome(s) of any review(s);
      • The length and location of all segregated cycleways, mandatory cycle lanes and shared use paths along BRT routes (planned and realised). Segregation may be achieved by, for instance, wands, planters, armadillos and/or kerbs. Advisory cycle lanes and shared use bus lanes should not be counted;
      • The number of bicycle parking spaces at BRT halts and terminals (planned and realised.

      Here is their response:

      I welcome the BRT. I think it will change the commuting habits of people in East Belfast and North Down. With the Comber Greenway running parallel to the BRT route it can provide a good alternative route for cyclists who do not wish to share bus lanes with rapid buses.

      Sustrans, in their BikeLife Survey found that of all options to increase cycling uptake sharing bus lanes was the least favoured option. Physically separating cyclists from motor traffic was the most favoured option.

      Sustrans BikeLife Belfast

      Indeed, segregated cycling infrastructure is the Department of Infrastructure’s vision for cycling. It is a pity that the vision is not being implemented.

      Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we won’t get a urban cycling network overnight. However, as each brick of the BRT is put in place, the less space remains for cycling along Albertbridge Road.

      The Mythical Mystery Tour

      The Comber Greenway stops abruptly at Holywood Arches. The junction is named after the railway arch which took the Belfast and County Down Railway over the busy Newtownards Road.

      Holywood Arches, Old Belfast (Facebook)

      The route, theoretically, continues onwards over the Connswater, through Ballymacarret, across Dee Street, to Titanic Railway halt, across the M3 and there joins the Sydenham Road cycleway. And then you have still a mile to go to the city centre.


      The above route is not the most direct way into the City Centre. It is not encouraging people from Ballyhackamore, Knock, King’s Road, Tullycarnet and Dundonald to get cycling, especially to destinations to the South and West of the City Centre.

      The direct route goes along the Albertbridge Road, across the Albert Bridge, East Bridge Street and from there into Belfast City Centre.

      It speaks volumes that Andrew Grieve from the Cycling Unit chose the Albertbridge Road route for his race against a motorist from the Holywood Road area into town, not the scenic route past Samson and Goliath, the Titanic Quarter and the Odyssee. 

      From a cycling perspective nothing will change for Andrew as he cycles to work. 

      And that is bad.

      What is good is that work is about to start on the Eastern section of the Belfast Bicycle Network Plan from the City Centre to Titanic halt. This will at least cut out the dog leg through Belfast’s mythical quarter, but will still leave cyclists who need to be south and west of the City Centre with a lengthy detour.

      The BRT has blazed ahead, with the approval of Sustrans, without considering cycling as a serious transport option.

      The Department of Infrastructure BRT project team always presumed that cyclists can be lumped together with rapid buses. The original BRT consultation report mentions that consultation responders asked how bus lanes would benefit cyclists. The department’s response is that cyclists can use bus lanes. Which is in my view is not sufficient in answering the questions raised during the consultation, or my FoI request.

      It leaves the impression cycling was not considered at all. The 12 bicycle parking spaces at the Dundonald Terminus are really adding insult to injury. The lack of bus stop bypasses in the entire plan is totally ignoring best practice on combining cycling and public transport.

      The latest figures put cycling commuting levels in Belfast at 3%, but we know from the 2011 Census levels in South and East are above 5%. This has been achieved without much investment in infrastructure. 

      To lift cycling uptake higher we need to see segregated cycling routes along our arterial roads, where people need to go to work, to school or college and to shop. Cycling routes should not be put down glass-strewn, poorly lit alleys.

      The plans for the BRT along Albertbridge Road are lazy, perfunctory. The parking bays are maintained on Albertbridge Road, even expanded. Cyclists get a painted lane countrybound, but no bus stop bypasses. 

      There is no protection at the Templemore junction where two eastbound traffic lanes merge and cyclists are expected to jostle for space with motorists.

      There is no protection for cyclists at the Newtownards Road junction. Motorists still get their slip road to avoid the lights. Can this space not be better used for a segregated cycle path?

      In the latest road safety report NI cyclists are more likely to get injured than car occupants. The blame for the crash lies with the other road user in 2/3 of cases. And in 3/4 of those careless driving is the root cause. This design should protect vulnerable road users and it fails.

      Every design should be put through a review and be scored on safety. Without protection cyclists are still endangered at junctions. Paint won’t stop a careless driver straying into a cycle lane. 

      The plans should also be scored on their efficiency. I doubt these plans increase or improve the flow of buses. At Templemore Avenue and Newtownards Road junctions the bus lane still stops short of the junction in favour of an extra car lane.

      The BRT is meant to shift car commuters towards public transport. An important victory was won when the preferred route was announced as the Newtownards Road. This meant the Comber Greenway was saved for active travel.

      However, at every turn in the implentation of the project the BRT team have bent over backwards to give cars the same amount of road space as they were given before. This is a doomed exercise. BRT will not succeed without removing car traffic. And the only way to reduce car traffic is to remove their road space. 

      Cycling Revolution

      Should we, cyclists, rejoice at getting a piece of tarmac painted green, with a cute bicycle motif? 

      Those days are over. If Belfast is really serious about cycling these plans would have been radically different. 

      How different?

      What if countrybound traffic was directed up Short Strand and then up Newtownards Road and citybound traffic down the Albertbridge Road?

      Countrybound (green); citybound (red)

      The current configuration of pavement, parking, 4 motor traffic lanes, parking, pavement could become pavement, cycle path, parking, bus lane in, general traffic lane, bus lane out, parking, cycle path and pavement.

      We must bear in mind that urban roads should be optimised to move people, not cars. Cars are incredibly inefficient in urban environments. They take up too much space and most of the time they sit still. Parked somewhere.
      Where to look for best practice?

      One cannot help but peek at Utrecht where they found space for rapid transit buses, whilst giving cyclists, cars and parked cars their own space. Buses have pride of place in the middle of the road. Cars (if allowed) are reduced to one lane with a parking strip protecting the bicycle paths.

      They got their priorities straight for the 21st Century when Belfast, despite Belfast on the Move, is still worshipping at the altar of King Car.

      Belfast Parking Strategy and Action Plan

      Belfast City Council has produced the draft for the Belfast Parking Strategy and Action Plan. You can have your say here.

      Last year I blogged about the various issues surrounding parking in central Belfast. I am pleased that Belfast City Council is thinking along the same lines and in many ways goes much further.

      In the draft, put together by AECOM, there are various parking management tools, such as live parking information boards, online payments, phone apps, variable tariffs to discourage all day on-street parking, and encourage turnover by automated parking bay monitoring. 

      These tools will be employed to make more efficient use of parking spaces, to reduce congestion due to people circulating for spaces and better monetise the available spaces.

      The draft recognises the blight caused by off-streat surface car parks; the invitation to drive by over-provision of parking; the congestion and harm to the local environment caused by excessive road traffic; the burden placed on local residents by all day parking by city centre workers.

      My blog post grossly underestimated (by 2/3) the amount of parking available. There are 40,000 spaces. Worrying is that my total was derived from official Belfast on the Move reports. If the Government was unaware what was happening on the street how could they ever address it properly?

      The draft makes for positive reading from a cyclist’s point of view. 

      1. Belfast Bikes docking stations are to be situated at or very near new multi-storey car parks around the city’s inner ring.
      2. Cycle parking will be increased across the City Centre, with security and covered against the weather.
      3. Residents only cycle parking will be provided.
      4. A feasibility study will be carried out for a Cycle Hub in the City Centre.
      5. Active Travel and Park and Ride schemes are to be promoted to discourage people using cars to access Belfast City Centre. Cycle infrastructure and parking will be enhanced in “quality and volume”.
      6. Cycle parking at railway stations is to be increased to encourage bike-train commuting to Belfast City Centre.
      7. Belfast City Council fully signs up to the NI Bicycle Strategy and so this Parking Strategy will be used to deliver the aims of the Bicycle Strategy.
      8. Planning applications for city centre developments will need to show “sufficient” amounts of cycle parking.

      It has to be noted that some of these points cannot be delivered by Belfast City Council alone, but need involvement from various NI Government departments. 

      For instance, providing and increasing the number of covered and secure bicycle stands at (for argument’s sake) Lurgan railway station is outside Belfast City Council control. 

      The building of cycle paths, Dutch-style roundabouts, etc, will be led by the Department of Infrastructure. Whilst their Cycling Unit’s heart is in the right place, the budget definitely isn’t.

      In Northern Ireland regional bus travel is important, because the railway network was  dramatically reduced in the 1960s on the recommendations of the Benson report. I’d like to see more cycle parking at bus stations and important halts outside Belfast, but also along the Belfast Rapid Transit routes, and so encourage bike-bus as an alternative to car travel.

      Bus stop with bicycle parking, Lingewaard, Netherlands (Wikipaedia)

      The draft has one central failing. Having recognised that a significant proportion of parking is always vacant, it then does not set about a strategy to reduce provision to more realistic levels. It moves surface spaces to new multi-storeys, but never at a significant reduction of overall numbers. 

      The only way to stop cars entering the city centre and to relieve congestion is to stop providing for cars. Encouraging uptake of active travel and increasing patronage of public transport is doomed if car use is not discouraged.

      Similarly, environmental benefits will fail to realise if Belfast city centre continues to roll out the red carpet for car drivers, be they commuters or leisure visitors.

      The draft should therefore contain targets and a timetable for reducing number of spaces. A reduction of 30% (wiping out the excess provision) in 10 years overall is ambitious, but achievable.

      If, for instance, a 500-space Park & Ride facility were to be opened  at Knockmore Halt  in Lisburn, then the number of Belfast city centre spaces should be reduced by at least 500, and ideally by many more to achieve real reduction.

      Also, the draft doesn’t fully recognise that on-street parking hinders rolling out of cycleways across the city. Dublin Road, for instance, should have a separated cycleway considering the volume of traffic and numbers of cyclists. Such a path cannot be accommodated because of on-street parking on both sides of the one-way road.

      Similarly, cycleways along Lisburn Road and Albertbridge Road are impossible as long as on-street parking is considered more valuable than moving people.


      The draft strategy has highlighted the obscene over-provision of car parking space in Belfast city centre. It sets out a variety of good measures to make more efficient use of the available provision.

      The strategy sees cycling as a viable transport alternative to 1) replace car commuter journeys; 2) to move people from outlying car parks to their place of work in the middle of town. 

      The strategy fails to address the over-provision adequately, and more effort should be made to reduce the number of spaces available.

      No Space for Cycling Here

      The Department of Infrastructure Cycling Unit posted on Facebook:

      Improvements are on the way for cycling and public transport on the Albertbridge Road. The benefits, which are being delivered as part of the Belfast Rapid Transit works, include improvements to drainage, resurfacing of the road and footpaths, enhanced street lighting, and additional lengths of bus lane which, of course, can be used by cyclists. The works are due to start on Monday 29 August.

      In order to deliver these benefits the works will necessitate the suspension of the section of existing cycle lane over the length of the works. We would ask cyclists to extra care for the duration of the works, which are due to be completed by summer 2017.

      They decorate their announcement of the bus lane improvement on the Albertbridge Road with pictures of Belfast’s best bits of cycling infrastructure: segregated cycleways and Belfast Bikes.

      Stranmillis Embankment (Cycling Unit)

      Alfred Street (Cycling Unit)

      I questioned why cyclists are made to share with buses. Perceived lack of safety is a constant complaint from colleagues who don’t cycle into work using the Lisburn Road’s peak time bus lane.

      Here’s the BRT team response:

      ‘Along the BRT routes we have endeavoured, where physically possible, to provide 12m carriageways (4 x 3m lanes) with 2.5m footways on either side. To provide dedicated cycle infrastructure on these corridors would require at least a further 3m of roadwidth, which is simply not available along much of the routes, including this section of the Albertbridge Road’.

      The Cycling Unit adds:

      From the Cycling Unit’s perspective: we have been working on a draft Bicycle Network Plan for Belfast which we hope to consult on very soon.

      We are striving to create separate cycling provision where possible over the next ten years, however, we see bus and cycle lanes as an interim measure until such routes are available.

      It is a scandal major pieces of traffic infrastructure are given the go ahead without considering cyclists. The plans for Belfast Rapid Transit barely mentioned cycling and now it’s being built across Belfast it is clear the routes are not made suitable for cycling. We have unforgiving high kerbs, especially at bus stops, and pinch points. 

      In the years since the BRT was consulted on, cycling in Belfast has changed dramatically: numbers have increased; there is the highly successful Belfast Bikes hire scheme.

      But still the BRT continues as if it’s ten years ago. It contains no plans for cycleways or infrastructure that will entice more people out on their bikes, even where space allows to construct these. People don’t want to cycle with a bus right up their backside. It is intimidating, however well the driver is trained.

      And is there no space as the BRT team assert? Like here on the Albertbridge Road, where ample space is afforded to parking:


      The only lack of space for cycling is in the imagination of the Belfast Rapid Transit team. They obviously value storage of private vehicles on public roads more than moving people from A to B.