Valentine's Bridge Submission to the Council

Valentine's Bridge at Temple Quay, Bristol

RE: PLANNING APPLICATION 02/04277/F/X - retention of stainless steel cycle barriers to bridge.

I object to the barriers on the following grounds: -

• Safety: potentially compromised - possibly FATALLY if major incident
• Disabled access: compromised
• Unnecessarily infringing the rights of cyclists to use a planned designated (shared) cycle route.

I am writing as: -

• a Bristol resident who cycles over the bridge to/from the station and/or to visit premises at Temple Quay
• A Bristol resident who sometimes walks over the bridge to/from the station
• A member of the BCC - Bristol Cycling Campaign.

Valentines Bridge is an unusual design with much architectural merit. It is a pity that there is/are no proximate sign(s) stating: -

• Who designed it
• Who owns it
• Who maintains it.

Why was a planning application notice not visible on or near the barriers?

Safety

When my teenage son & I used Temple Meads Station recently we were horrified to find the safety barriers obstacle course at the ends of the Valentine's Bridge near the ferry landing. When he was younger we used to cycle to the Station with my son on a Hann child trailer (which had one wheel and articulates behind me). We know that some folk still use similar machines and the wide (two wheeled) enclosed Burley child trailer in Bristol. If anyone attempted to take an articulated child trailer through the obstacles there is a real danger that the trailer would become so unstable that a child could tip off. This can happen when wheeling round tight corners but never occurred when we were cycling.

At this time of year there are potential GREAT DANGERS of untreated icy surface causing: -

• Accidents on the metal surfaced bridge
• Sliding onto & down the ferry steps & into the water
• Accidents when vehicles attempt to turn near the ferry steps.

The barriers do nothing to alleviate these dangers - they compound the problem by preventing pedestrians or cyclists from proceeding in a constant direction thus increasing the risk of slides and skids. If the barriers are intended to be safety devises to reduce speed - they are potentially dangerous sledge hammers to crack nuts.

Furthermore, the bridge could be a useful escape route over the river if a major incident arose at

• Temple Quay
• Temple Meads Station
• The station Forecourt/Car Park
• The new hotel, which is being built nearby.
• Nearby roads - Temple Way Temple Bridge to Temple Gate Cattlemarket Road

The barriers would VERY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the rate of pedestrian evacuation over the river. This could be catastrophic if other escape routes were simultaneously impassable during Temple Quay core time e.g. chemical spillage along nearby roads causing poisonous fumes or major failure/accident of buried services.

Uni-cycles are sometimes ridden in Bristol and would squeeze through the barriers but might be endangered by the sharp turns with low parapet so close to the water.

The media would have a field day if a Department of the Environment worker was injured by a safety barrier on the way to/from work.

FOR A MAJOR OFFICE COMPLEX BY A MAJOR STATION STRATEGIC SAFETY SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY.

These barriers could be dangerous and should be removed NOW before anyone is injured or killed.

DISABLED ACCESS

The barriers are so badly arranged and closely spaced that they discriminate against :-

• twin baby buggies
• enclosed electric wheelchairs
• tandems
• tricycles
• penny farthing bicycles
• bicycles with child trailers
• bicycles with other trailers.

ALL of these are legitimate users, which are seen in Bristol (admittedly some not every day). These barriers have been recently built ON a route, which forms part of an access route to a major station. The South West Regional Development Agency claim credit for the Temple Quay development. One of their claims is Addressing social and economic imbalance will be achieved by helping to reduce the barriers to employment. The final parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1975 have not come into effect yet but should be planned for NOW. Clearly the safety barriers do not comply with these. If they comply with any regulations - there is clearly something wrong with the regulations.

These barriers discriminate against the disabled and should be removed NOW.

UNNECESSARILY INFRINGING THE RIGHTS OF CYCLISTS TO USE A DESIGNATED (SHARED) CYCLE ROUTE

Cyclists and pedestrians should be able to safely co-exist PROVIDED they are aware of and respect each other.

• As a pedestrian on the bridge I have never had any problems from cyclists.
• As a cyclist I have sometimes had minor impedance on the bridge

Like horses - pedestrians can be startled by anything including cyclists quietly approaching from behind. There are 2 solutions from most sensible cyclists: -

• Slow down and keep back until there is sufficient space to safely overtake
• Ring bell/horn or shout mind your backs or coming through on the left/right or ring, ring! whilst approaching (but not too near).

IFthere is a speeding / conflict problem between a minority of cyclists and a minority of pedestrians there should be signs warning cyclists and pedestrians to beware of each other. This sign could be something simple like Safe cyclists welcome.

The bridge was planned for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists yet the signage and recent barriers seek to deter cyclists. Even the Security staff claim to be unaware that on the bridge CYCLING IS PERMITTED.

Valentines Bridge is near the end of the Bristol - Bath cycle path and is used by passengers and railway staff on their way to/from Bristol Temple Meads Station (including early morning and late evening when other public transport is sparse or not running). It is also used by employees (including the Environment Agency) working in Temple Quay.

On the Bristol - Bath cycle path speed reducing chicanes were built at the foot of a steep incline from Staple Hill and further east at an unlit site. These were built days before a major sponsored bike ride involving over 500 cyclists - some from far afield. There was much furore about the potential dangers of these obstacles, which were eventually removed. The obstacles were considered so dangerous that (following my suggestion for damage limitation): -

• special safety announcements were made at the start of the event
• and marshals were positioned at the approach to these obstacles.

The incline at the approach from Staple Hill was eventually re-engineered to be longer but less steep.

We had hoped that lessons would be learnt - 'safety barriers' should not be used as a dangerous, cheap substitute for more appropriate measures on cycle routes

Conclusion

To conclude - appropriate barriers can be useful near a cycle route to prevent unauthorised vehicles from entering. (Gates with RADAR keys for the disabled and emergency services are frequently simultaneously provided - again off the cycle route).

BARRIERS SHOULD NOT NORMALLY BE BUILT ON A CYCLE ROUTE.

Suggestions

1. The barriers should be removed from the shared pedestrian / cycle way AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
2. Perhaps as a face-saver the barriers could be better used as safety devises on the steps leading to the ferry landing (but not dangerously near the cycle route).
3. It would be helpful if the entire shared route (from Avon Street to Temple Meads Station) were better signed so that cyclists and pedestrians know where to expect each other are less likely to stray down the steps in foul weather. Just around the corner there is an example of better signage of a shared pedestrian/cycle route alongside Gardner Haskins: -
   • Different colour floor surface for cyclists and pedestrians
   • Shared use signs above shoulder height wherever cyclists/pedestrians join or leave the route
   • Small tiles with bicycles engraved on them (in different colour from floor surface)
4. Resurface the bridge with a more appropriate surface, which is less prone to condensation and sheet ice.

Yours sincerely

Terry Miller