I could accept the fact that it was incomplete, because I knew it was the start of something longer and better, but the council (at least one particular section of the council, decided against it). Why? Well, before we get to that I'll describe my experience attending the council meeting.
Apologies, this might be quite long, and as I write it I am likely to become a bit more agitated. There will be grammar and spelling mistakes. But this needs to come out of my head, and off the notes on the paper fresh and unadulterated. This will truly be the Mind of a Helmet Camera Cyclist. However, I think it will be worth the read. I don't plan to hold back. My mind has a habit of speaking its mind...
The meeting was set to start at 6pm. Unfortunately due to childcare commitments, and a wife that likes to see me occasionally I could not go along to the meeting. However, after chatting with a fellow concerned Twitter cyclist, he went along at 6pm and would have to leave early and I'd pop along later. Apparently these meetings could go on beyond 11pm...
So I drive to the council building (sorry!) and park outside. As I get out the car I notice some council employees leaving the building. It looked like they were locking up...
"The meeting started at 6pm...."Anyway after a few minutes they decided to let me in, and told me where the meeting was. So off I went though the deserted council offices....
I found the door to the meeting and went in. The meeting was in full flow, although my entrance seemed to raise a few eyebrows. Perhaps that had something to do with the Pedal on Parliament t-shirt I was wearing. Who knows. I found my seat and the meeting continued.
I was sat next to about 4 or 5 other members of the public, one of which who appeared to have a booklet with all the meeting reports in it and one that was using a tablet. I got out my phone and started tweeting.
"Sorry, but you have to switch that off...."Turns out, electronic equipment has to be switched off in the chamber. Thus, no way of sharing with the wider public, what is happening in a public meeting. Very democratic. Anyway, I complied and turned my phone off. At which point I gently pointed out the chap on his tablet.....
"Ah, but he's only using it to read the agenda..."
Hmm. anyway the tablet user decided to put it away at this point anyway.
A short while later after a few agenda points were dealt with the next point on the agenda came up, relating to a crossing point to the new Hub building in Bearsden. This agenda was led by Cllr Cummings (independent). He wanted a new crossing point, pretty much everyone else (a few exceptions) didn't see the need for it.
Cut a long story short, he wanted a crossing that you would have to cross two side roads to use to get anywhere useful, everyone else pointed this out, Cllr Cummings got asked a few questions about it, took offence and got grumpy that everyone was making it personal. They weren't. Cllr Cummings then asked that an amendment be tabled. It was pointed out that it would have made life easier if he had prepared this before the meeting (he hadn't) and it took a while for him to convey the exact wording of the amendment. At this point, someone pointed out that the amendment that he was tabling, had already been covered in the report before the council and thus, this was a whole waste of time, Cllr Cummings got even more cross at alleged personal attacks, and everyone got a bit grumpy.
In the end he agreed that he would table something at a later meeting.
That all took about 45 minutes.
There followed a 10 minute adjournment (I found out that 10 minutes in council chambers actually means 20 minutes). I got chatting to my Twitter friend, who would have to leave soon, and we both agreed that it had been a bit of a farce up until now. Things would improve, surely...
During the break I said hello to a few council members who I happened to know. One councillor who I didn't know came over to talk to me.
"Why don't you cycle on the canal?"Off to a great start there! I explained my reasons. Turned out that this councillor (who was Cllr Gibbons of SNP) also cycled, had once lived in the area, but was now in Bearsden. He was definitely chatting as if he liked Bears Way and showed me the plans that had been submitted for the Sustrans competition previously (segregated lanes around the Burnbrae Roundabout). I susggested that they were very good, and he appeared to agree....well in hindsight I'm not 100% sure he did...but at the time he was coming across positively.
So I ask him, how does he think it will go...
"Depends. See that chap over there (Cllr MacKay), he's not feeling great. It all depends on if he manages to last to the vote or not. If he manages it will go against Bears Way".This was interesting. It indicated that the vote was pretty much already known. They knew who would probably vote which way. I (wrongly) assumed that Gibbons would be voting for, and his fellow SNP Cllr was voting against. Was this a party split? If so, fair enough as it should be a free vote (and this was mentioned before the vote by Cllr Cummings where he specifically suggested that it would be. There were a few surprises that he mentioned it...)
Anyway the meeting soon started again.
This section consisted of technical questions related to the report which had been prepared by the council. This report was comprehensive. In fact there were a few comments on quite how comprehensive it was at 232 pages. I did not have a copy of the report at the meeting. although I do now. You can read it for yourself, here.
The important section stated:
3.1. It is recommended that the Council:-
a) Notes the report and the review of Phase 1 and approves proposed amendments to
b) Notes the options available for the continuation of the Bears Way following the
modelling exercise and the feedback from the recent consultation exercise
c) Based on a) and b) above instructs officers to proceed to the detailed design stage of
Phase 2 in accordance with option 4 within this report and to continue with the
principle of the segregated cycle lane, ensuring that as part of this further detailed
stakeholder consultation will be carried out throughout the design, development and
implementation of Phase 2 of the project.
Before it could get further two amendments were placed on record. One by Cllr Small (SNP)
And one was from Cllr Cummings
When they 'shockingly' realise that there were two, the paused the meeting, got together for a couple of minutes and then agreed a new mish mash, wording. It was as follows.
Lots of things were striking about that, but two specifically - cycling groups will not be invited to consult (see (a)). This was pointed out by the labour councillors, but Keith Small (who led the adjusted amendment declined to add them). Secondly the fact that future works on phase 1 must protect parking.The Council agreed as follows:-a) To note the report and the review of Phase 1 approve proposed improvements bullet points 1 and 2 as detailed in 5.13, page 206, and instructs Officers to report back to Council on the full implications and costs of bullet points 3 and 4. The Report would include a full and meaningful public consultation with all Community Councils in Bearsden and Milngavie, all Residents? Associations, bus operators, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and disability groups:b) To note the options available for the continuation of the Bears Way following the modelling exercise and the feedback from the recent consultation exercise;c) Not to proceed with any of the Phase 2 options;d) To take note of all elements of public consultation, and all comments received from members of the community;e) To note the recently organised and submitted petition by Mrs Aileen McIntyre on change.org that contained 2600 signatures, and numerous comments regarding Bears Way; andf) That any future works associated with Phase 1, or any subsequent works, must include the protection of residential, commercial and commuter parking.
Cyclists were not mentioned at all.
So Keith Small stood up to support the amendment first.
First thing he said, was...
I am not anti cycling.....but....Bingo!
He went on to say that all needed to be considered and stressed that cycling was not the ONLY way of promoting health in the community. He said that segregation had produced conflict. He stressed that the road width had been reduced and that phase 2 would reduce road width.
He then quoted a very strange quote that he said he heard from a business person:
Pure cars, pure parking, pure business.I'm not sure what that was about!
He stressed that car ownership in the area was high and that many families had 2, 3 or more cars. "People work hard to buy a car". The suggestion being that having worked hard for that car, you had more right....
He then suggested that rail passenger numbers had recently increased significantly, and made the comment "practical people get the train". He then stressed that the current percentage of people ccling was small (yes 2% up from 0.8% before Bears Way, an incomplete lane...). He was concerned that parking displaced by the lane (which was apparently going to be very small) would result in people driving further, leading to more car use. Yes, that confused me to.
He then finished off by saying that 18,000 vehicle journeys a day occur along the road, and that they were frustrated by the 8% that are not using the lane.
"People need their car!"
The Cllr Moody (Lib Dem) stood up.
He admitted that they had agreed on phase 1 consultation, and was glad he did. He then waffled off a bit (I think I drifted off...) . He mentioned site visits to Asda and Boclair, and that some road engineers he spoke to said that the junctions were at capacity and any changes would make things worse (Hmmm). He stated quite clearly:
"No one had ever e-mailed him asking for segregated cycle lanes".There is some dispute about at what stage in the process the first person did, as we know people did!
He then told us how he used to cycle, but recently has only cycled 10 times. He prefers cycling on wide roads. he also pointed out that we couldn't control cyclists. We couldn't force them to use the cycle path. He then pointed out that just because there is 'free money available' doesn't mean we need to accept it. Yes, he is saying he doesn't want the money.
"We've dug a hole, we should stop digging"Cllr Moir (Lab) stood up.
He supports the report, and points out that those now against the scheme were previously in favour. But there had been a big change in April. He wasn't sure why.... The lane was working, and had an added bonus of slowing traffic. Accident rates pre and post lane were exactly the same. Significant health benefits. He then quotes Derek Mackay and Humza Yousaf who were supportive of the scheme.
Anothe labour councillor stood up (didn't catch his name)
He was amazed at the political turnaround. He hoped those that vote against will be ready for the response after.
Cllr Henry (Lab) stood up. By far the best of the night. Well done to the council officers, especially in the face of abuse. The whole tone of the campaign had been horrible. She had spent time in London and though the segregated lanes there were wonderfu;. She was pleased when she heard they would come to East Dunbartonshire. They were giving people a choice, they were for the next generation, visionary, exciting. We needed to be brave and have vision.
Cllr Shergill (Lab) stood up. He pointed out that Derek Mackay said the scheme was exemplar, and it had been endorsed by Humza.
Cllr Cummings (Ind) stood up. He went on for a fair but telling us how long he had been a councillor, "17 years representing communities"...I drifted again.... Then he came back on focus, saying that this was the most controversial scheme he'd every been involved in. People were deeply upset (I still cannot fathom why!!) He then mentioned a blog that someone had written somewhere (I don't think it was me, but ....hello Cllr Cummings if you are reading....). the blog had called him 'anti cyclist'. He claimed he wasn't, as he cycled a bike sometimes in remote places (yes he did actually say that), so not anti and he'd never met anyone who is anti cycling....but.....he didn't actually say this, but it's pretty obvious he hates cycle infrastructure. He's not anti cycling, so long as you cycle far away from anywhere remotely populated....
At this point, everyone in the room was flagging, and no-one else could be bothered to talk, so Cllr Small got back up to sum up.
He didn't hold back and went straight for the juggular using all the misinformation at his disposal....
"Segregated lanes are not a good way to encourage cycling"Apparently.
Milngavie Road was apparently, in his words, 'shared space'.
"Motorists and cyclists co-existed happily."
Oh yes indeedy. We have entered cloud cuckoo land. I often had drivers giving me a friendly wave. In fact they would often stop and give me a cuddle. No diver ever shouted abuse at me, swerved at me, claimed I had no right to be on the road....oh no. It was all just a bad dream....
Sorry, I digress...
Segregation my dear friends (and this is pretty much what he said), was heading down the wrong road (ahem). The way to achieve 10% modal share of cycling was to get people cycling between where they live and schools. Where they live and shops.
He stressed it agian, just in case we hadn't beleived him the first two times...
"Segregation will not get to 10%"Right! Haud the bus! Just stop what you are doing! Yes you, Amsterdam (and many cities and towns near by), Copenhagan, London, Seville, New York, Oslo, Minneapolis (yes really) Bogata, Stockholm, Malmo, Berlin.......etc etc. Yes you lot. You've got it all wrong. Listen to the SNP, Lib Dems and a couple of independent councillors in east Dunbartonshire. They know best! Rip it out. Build more roads. Cyclists and drivers get on just fine. Honest.
Oh and he said the lane was over engineered. It needed to be less intrusive. So I suspect that means, it needs to be out in the sticks (as Cllr Cummings seems to prefer), shared with pedestrians (oh yes that works) or a wee bit of paint on the road. Can't be holding up the car drivers who have been sold a dream of easy driving by the marketing departments of the car companies!
Cllr Geekie (lab) stood up and surveyed the damage done by arguments you just can't argue against because you couldn't really do it in a council chamber without being really insulting....
She pointed out that you will never please drivers with cycle infrastructure (I don't actually agree with that, as a recent survey suggested that the happiest drivers were in the Netherlands...). She pointed out that improvements had already been made to phase 1, and that not having phase 2 would please no-one. The lane must be extended.
Tada! That my friends was the end of that. A short recess was called (to some mutterings and folk wanted to get home), and councillors checked that there would be no voting against local party policy. They came back....It was all a blur by this point....and the vote proceeded. It went quickly, and I couldn't keep up, but there were many voting for the amendment, including Cllr (I'm a friend of cyclists) Gibbons, and Cllr Anne (I was on the board of the local cycling coop) McNair (who incidentally hasn't replied to my e-mail...).
Long story short (well, it's already long).... 11 for Bearsway, 12 for amendment that effectively killed it.
I wasn't for staying a minute longer. I stood up, and everyone looked around (as there were only two of us in the very close public gallery) and I couldn't help myself. Looking at the SNP group I said...
"Shame........Shame......"I noted the slight smirk on Cllr Small's face, and I walked out.
And there you have it. East Dunbartonshire said yes to the driver, and no to anyone wanting to use a bike. There is not allowed to be a vote on this now for another 6 months, by which time we will be in the midst of a council election, which is likely to bring us more SNP councillors.
Don't forget folks the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are progressive parties. Yes they are. Well, they aren't where I live.
A very sad tale indeedReplyDelete
How is it that local councillors have so much power here? The leadership to push through significant change just doesn't exist in the lower echelons of local government so in most cases the status quo remains...
a sad tale indeedReplyDelete
please don't be disheartened
" cyclists stay awesome "
in my opinion says it all
Better make sure you get a good bundle of Green Party candidates next year then! Time to start getting ready now?ReplyDelete
If your Green Party councilers are anything like those in Glasgow they will be far to busy working towards various international social justice issues to do anything about local cycling issues.ReplyDelete
A sadly depressing tale, especially when you read sturmeyarcher3 experiences you've previously relayed below. However, this is democracy. Therefore name those that voted for and against. Then hopefully, those who voted against won't be re-elected.ReplyDelete
I'm in the States and have heard the news. It doesn't surprise me. They are a small minded self-interested bunch, and Gibbons is an absolute two-faced b.ReplyDelete
This is a scheme that would put ED in a position as a really progressive local authority. I'm in America, and the car based culture, and it's effect on waistlines, is depressing to see.
This sounds like it was so frustrating, and I'm sorry it went this way. Local government, eh? (your final comment, about Cllr Small's alleged smirk, is a truly horrible cherry on the top). Is there any grounds for appeal of this decision?ReplyDelete
I actually preferred the old cycle lanes before Bearsway 1. They needed a better surface and parking controls in a couple of places. Otherwise good. The only place needing attention is the railway overbridge at Hillfoot. Ban parking there and there is a nearside lane for cycling and improved traffic flow as vehicles turning R into towards Bearsden X no longer stop traffic.ReplyDelete
Since Bearsway 1 was built I now get hassle from drivers when I choose not to use it. very rarely an issue before.
Bearsway 2 (option 4) would have badly affected traffic flow by reducing southbound traffic at Asda to one lane from the current 2. The junction is already over capacity at peak periods. Not justified when 98% of users are not cyclists. Like it or not the vast majority of local residents don't want to cycle and there is a limit to how far the vast majority should be inconvenienced for the tiny minority.
In any case from Boclair Rd to Canniesburn Toll is fine for cycling as it is. Four lanes. I take the nearside lane and motor traffic flows past on the outside lane. Mark a shared footway lane on the existing footway for novice/child cyclists.
I'm not convinced Bearsway 2 would have increased safety. There would have been several junctions where car/van drivers would need to give way both to oncoming cars, oncoming bikes, and bikes approaching from the rear through their blind spot. An accident waiting to happen. Unless there was a cyclist only phase at Asda and Boclair Rd junctions which would further slow journey times of both cars and cyclists.
Local democracy working.