But before we get into that, let’s just remind ourselves of what the plans are for cycling on University Avenue (read the full story here):

• Painted cycle lanes will remain as they are on only one side (the uphill sections) of the road, where they will then disappear.
• There will be no physical protection provided from traffic for people cycling, Recent research has shown that painted lanes encourage dangerous close passes.
• The lanes will not be widened. The current painted lanes are 1.5m (the bare minimum outlined in the subscribed design guide Cycling by Design – the desired width suggested is 2m) and new plans will merely retain this 1.5m minimum.
• The lanes currently have double yellow lines (meaning no stopping) and will now have a mandatory status white line added for the cycle lane (meaning no driving). There will be no discernible change effected in the stopping legislation by making the lanes mandatory. The advisory painted lanes on University Avenue have always had double yellow line status which we have proven to be ineffective against illegal parking. If it has been too difficult to enforce no parking, it will be even more difficult to enforce no driving. Making the lanes mandatory will formalise the painted lane status but will have no effect on the illegal parking that causes danger to people cycling on University Avenue.
• People on bikes will be forced at the top of the hill into the stream of traffic at a pinch point where the lanes disappear.
• People cycling descending the hill will be forced onto the carriageway to mix with traffic.

Now, let’s take a minute to consider some of the UofG’s communications which include this video, their campus redevelopment updates and some quotes from their more recent emails.

Safer / Everyone / All

Safer – The condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury.

Everyone – Every person.

All – Used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

“…we believe we are implementing a design that best balances the needs of all users.”

University of Glasgow

“we will shortly begin the work to make the Avenue safer for all”

University of Glasgow

Safer….? As in more safe than now? Protected? And for everyone….? Reeeeeally everyone…. are you sure?

Upgrading

Upgrading -Raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components.

As outlined in our points above, nothing in these plans show a higher standard or improvement planned for the current, frankly dangerous, cycling space on University Avenue.

This university representative doesn’t go on to say how the cycle lanes are being upgraded, but elsewhere, such as here, the claim is made that the lanes will be widened!

Well that’s just great isn’t it! Widened to the minimum standard! And as we have already shown, a gain in 5cms is hardly something to crow about!:

Segregation

Segregation – The action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.

“The Transport Assessment was one of the supporting reports submitted as part of the Planning Permission in Principle in 2016.  Section 4.6 of the TA states that the proposed cycle measures for University Avenue “will aim to provide clear routes of access to, through and around Gilmorehill Campus such as clearer segregation on University Avenue, clearer wayfinding…”.   

The definition being referred to in this case is Glasgow City Council’s Strategic Plan for Cycling 2016-2025, which makes no distinction between the differing types of segregation, but uses this as a terminology.

The measures being referred to are ‘mandatory cycle lanes’ on the uphill section of the road for the exclusive use of cyclists which will deliver clearer segregation from other vehicles entering the cycle lane through legislation. “

University of Glasgow

Yes. This was an actual quote in an email from the university in an attempt to explain away their failure to provide the segregation promised in their Planning Permission in Principle submission. Our most recent response to the UofG has tried to address this but we are aghast:

“It is extremely concerning that you are now attempting to claim a new meaning for the word ‘segregation’ that is unrecognisable to anyone with any knowledge of cycle infrastructure. In no facet of active travel transport planning does segregation mean anything but physically separated from other forms of transport, and had you consulted with active travel organisations, you would have known this. We have been unable to find anything in the council’s Strategic Plan for Cycling 2016-25 that could lead to this interpretation. The word segregated is mentioned only four times in the document – please refer us to the page where segregated cycle lanes could be interpreted to mean painted lines.”

GoBike

Hierarchy

Hierarchy – An arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness.

“We are doing this whilst adhering to the national transport hierarchy…”

University of Glasgow

“However, I would like to ensure you that the changes being made to University Avenue do accommodate needs of all users within the national transport hierarchy and the design meets relevant technical road safety requirements”

University of Glasgow

Our most recent response to the UofG has included this attempt to explain:

“We also need to correct you on your understanding of the Transport Hierarchy, particularly as you’re now quoting it as a part of the conditions you’ve complied with. I’ve attached the graphic from Transport Scotland’s documentation to illustrate. A hierarchy does not simply mean taking each user into account as you had suggested in your response to us. It means giving the users at the top of the hierarchy the highest level of priority which decreases as you descend this tree. The priority given to people cycling in your plans does not fit within the priority structure of the Transport Hierarchy and therefore your plans do not adhere to it. To continue to state that they do is wholly inaccurate and insincere.”

GoBike

And Um….

…this bit doesn’t even make sense!

… sorry, what? How is widening footpaths reducing conflict for pedestrians and cyclists? The cycle lanes are on the road. Is this a desperate attempt to show that the plans are doing something positive for cycling? It doesn’t even make any sense! Surely UofG are not advocating that University Avenue is so dangerous to cycle on that people should cycle on the pavement? Are they?! And what about the conflict on the road…between cyclists and faster moving heavy large vehicles?

Disingenuous

Disingenuous – not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Mendacious

Mendacious – not telling the truth; lying.

To keep you updated on the retrofitting front as well, we’ve also sent both UofG and GCC this request:

“Please agree and outline who is responsible for the retrofitting measures mentioned that you have been using to pacify people writing in with concerns about University Avenue.

UofG are now referring to retrofitting, suggesting it will only happen “should this be something the council wish to revisit”. On the other hand, GCC have stated that “The University already has Section 56 approval for the works and any additional features that they agree to retrofit will be proposed by the University and not by Glasgow City Council. GoBike would require to approach the University regarding consultation on measures”. GCC had also stated that “the University is currently exploring the option to introduce light segregation which would afford protection to cyclists from vehicles, but this will initially be on a trial basis to ensure there will be no detrimental impact on pedestrian safety i.e. represent a trip hazard.” So which is it?

Is it the case that there have already been discussions and a decision regarding retrofitting that has not included us?

We remain deeply disappointed with both the University of Glasgow who continue to argue contrary to its own active travel and sustainability policies, and Glasgow City Council who claim to be working towards a linked up active travel network for the city, yet allow this redevelopment to proceed, when it keeps people cycling on one of their key cycling routes in danger. We hold a grave concern for the future of a cycling network in Glasgow if brave decisions cannot be made on a key through and destination street with a user population so suited to active travel.”

GoBike

We call for the University of Glasgow to stop claiming what is not true in their press and advertising. Conditions will NOT be safer for people cycling on the street, conditions have NOT been improved for people cycling, and the safety of everyone has NOT been taken into account.

Since our human bike lane protest, we have had one meeting with the university during which they maintained that narrow painted lanes on only the up hill sections of the road, which offer no physical protection, do nothing to deter parking, and also throw people cycling out into the stream of traffic at the top of the hills, will make conditions safer for cycling. They have also continued to maintain this in subsequent statements and videos.

Glasgow City Council are also refusing to acknowledge their failing on University Avenue, citing space to be an issue. They appear to have forgotten that University Avenue is a part of their much internally celebrated ‘Colleges Cycle Route’. The commuters resulting from the roads direct passage between areas of the west end, and the staff and students of the university, are a key population for uptake of active travel if the conditions are made safe. Not only that but University Avenue is a key link to other planned place making schemes with active travel at their heart, such as Connecting Woodside, Queen Margaret Drive, Byres Road and the Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Cycling Village. In an email to us, when challenged on the transport hierarchy, Glasgow City Council officers explained that:

These documents “apply a user hierarchy to the design process with pedestrians at the top which means considering the needs of pedestrians first when considering the design of any road layout” and I can therefore confirm that Council Officers are fully aware of the user hierarchy and the implications of its examination in proximity of new development on design and layout proposals.

Now, we fully agree that people walking deserve the highest priority, however what the council don’t seem to understand is that people cycling come next in that tree, with the private car far below both cycling and public transport.

We are not the only people who have been communicating their fear and disappointment about the plans with the university. We know that several MSPs, councillors, staff, students and the public have also been challenging the plans. In several of these communications the university have told others re: GoBike, that:

“my team are reviewing their proposals and will actively seek to work with them”

This was news to us. So we sent them in a proposal that shows exactly how there is enough space on University Avenue to accommodate all users in accordance with the transport hierarchy.

• Make University Avenue one-way for motor vehicles. Reducing through traffic should be key to the changes if you truly want to create a safer and less polluted environment for your 35,000 students and staff (as well as for all of the other users of the road).
• Create a bus gate for University Avenue. Outwith bus gate times, vehicular traffic must wait behind bus drop offs. This will help to further discourage through traffic in the safer environment the University strives to create.
• Consider using Kelvin Way for waiting coaches.
• Reduce the carriageway to 3 meters (as per the single lane width planned for Byres Road).
• Create two stepped unidirectional segregated cycle tracks (2 ms plus 0.5 m buffer) on both sides of the road. As well as creating proven safe space for cycling, the separation from traffic and open spaced environment this approach will create, will also improve the pedestrian experience as per the aspirations of the University.
• Widen the pavements even wider than currently planned. With this approach an additional 0.5 meters can be added to the extra pavement width already gained in the current plans, giving people on foot on University Avenue the highest level of priority they deserve.

Despite nudging them several times now for both a review of this proposal, and evidence that they are actively seeking to work with us, we’ve received nothing of that nature.

Others have also been told by the university that retrofitting is being looked at:

“the University is currently exploring the option to introduce light segregation which would afford protection to cyclists from vehicles but this will initially be on a trial basis to ensure there will be no detrimental impact on pedestrian safety i.e. represent a trip hazard.”

The University have been telling others that:

“we have recently become aware of the campaign group ‘Go Bike'”

Although the lack of consultation with us could have been rectified by a simple “glasgow cycle campaign” web search, as the university are now aware of us, we’ve asked to be consulted on the talk of light segregation and retrofitting. The expertise we have among our members would have plenty of suggestions that would help solve trip hazard issues. We’ve heard nothing back.

Our members have been gathering evidence to show why anything less than segregated infrastructure will not solve the systemic problems which exist (thanks to our hard working member Iain McLarty for putting this together). We have sent this in to the university with the explanation that:

Since the middle of February, various people have been tweeting photos from University Avenue when they see vehicles stopped in these lanes. These are attached. To be clear, in all of these photos the vehicles are already breaking the law by stopping on double yellow lines. The sheer number of occasions and variety of times when this is happening at the exact time when someone happens to be cycling along this street suggests that illegal stopping in cycle lanes is an issue which can only be solved by structural solutions (ie. segregated infrastructure) rather than any attempts at behavioural change (such as increased enforcement) which would inevitably lapse back towards the current situation over time.

https://www.gobike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/University-Avenue-Unsafe-Evidence.pdf

For this clear lack of consideration for people cycling or a joined up active travel network to happen on the street adjoining Byres Road, where we have fought for years to finally have safe cycling considered in the plans, is not only frustrating, but incredibly worrying. Glasgow City Council has a very very long way to go before it can proclaim itself as active travel friendly. Officers have stated to us that:

“I can confirm the integration and tie in of University Avenue with Byres Road new cycling infrastructure was carefully considered and reviewed by GCC Officers who were satisfied with the proposal.”

We have now asked that the evidence above from University Avenue is reviewed as a matter of urgency and that the university are held to account on their continued statements that the new proposals will be safe for cycling. Their conduct in failing to respond to questions, proposals and requests for consultation should also be challenged.

If you also want to voice your concern please write to these councillors;

Cllr Anna Richardson (City Convenor for Sustainability and Carbon Reduction)

Cllr Martha Wardrop (Councillor for Hillhead)

Cllr Ken Andrew (Councillor for Hillhead)

Cllr Hanzala Malik (Councillor for Hillhead)

Patrick Grady MP (MP for Glasgow North)

Sandra Whyte MSP (MSP for Kelvin)

Patrick Harvie MSP (MSP for Glasgow)

People of all ages formed a human bike lane on the fading painted strips on the street. Using themselves to protect people cycling on the road from the traffic, the flash mob lane stretched up to the top of the hill, and many people rang bells and waved at passing motorists.

A student at the university, Eachann Gillies said “I’m really happy to see Glasgow University recognising that University Avenue needs a reallocation of space – more space for pedestrians definitely makes sense. However, I think the failure to provide real space for cycling is a real backwards step. I cycle up University Avenue regularly and I often have to dodge doors opening into my path, cars parked in the cycle lane and close passes whilst cycling uphill. The University should be thinking about what kind of travel it wants to enable and what kind of environment it wants to create for its students and staff. The new proposals certainly don’t look to be creating safe space for cycling”.

Iona Shepherd, co-convenor of GoBike, said “Paint is not protection, and we simply cannot accept roads being upgraded without providing safe spaces for active travel. We live in a city where almost 50% of households do not own a car. Our streets need to be safe not just for people who currently choose the bike to get around, but for all people who want to choose active travel but don’t because there is no safe linked up network available for them. University Avenue is well used by cycling staff, students and commuters, and we welcome the improvements in the scheme for pedestrians. But 37% of students at Glasgow University have said they would cycle if routes were safer, and so this project could do so much to boost active travel share if the cycling provision is right. The road is a key link in the Colleges Cycle Route and without an improvement to the plans, there will be a catastrophic failure to link up an active travel network to and from new and existing schemes on the improved designs for Byres Road, as well as Queen Margaret Drive, Connecting Woodside, and the Yorkhill and Kelvingrove Cycling Village. We need active travel to be given due priority for our city to become less congested, less polluted, healthier and safer.”

The campaign group Space for People Byres Road recently worked on pushing for improvements to Byres Road itself, where public consultation was met with overwhelming public opposition due to its lack of safe cycling provision. Euan Muir from the group attended todays protest and said “University Avenue is currently unsafe. It’s a road busy with motor traffic slicing through the centre of campus, dividing it in two. To simply cross campus requires dashing between streams of motor vehicles. The consequence of this motor induced danger was seen last year when someone was killed. Those opting to cycle are expected to mix with these motor vehicle streams which understandably few are willing to-do. The current campus development plans do little to alleviate any of these issues. And in some cases could make matters worse. Our streets should be safe such that people can cross the street with ease and feel safe to cycle.”

Thank you for all your support and presence at our protest today. GoBike have written to the university planners as well as Glasgow City Council and local councillors to call for a redesign of University Avenue that includes segregated cycle lanes on both sides of the street.

We are going to create a human cycle lane along University Avenue to highlight the desire for segregated cycle infrastructure, on this important route. This is missing from the current University plans to develop the road.

Glasgow University is currently undertaking a £1 billion campus redevelopment which this includes improvements to University Avenue. This redevelopment will link into Byres Road and is an important part of the Colleges Cycle Route. However the current plans do not include any segregated cycle infrastructure.

Byres Road Success

Like us, this will probably be a surprise to most. Especially coming so soon after the successful campaign for Byres Road, where the response to the councils public consultation highlighted the desire for segregated cycle infrastructure.

As a result of overwhelming public opposition to the original proposals, the plans for Byres Road have now been redesigned. These new designs include segregated cycle lanes.

Your Voices Matters

Glasgow City Council listened to the overwhelming support for safe cycling on Byres Road. However we need you to make your voice heard with the same support for University Avenue.

Like our many protests on Byres Road – the cycle ride from the Transport Museum, the original #paintisnoprotection event, even the community event with the local councillors at Hillhead. These were only successful and powerful because you added your voice.

#paintisnotprotection

So come along and add your voice to the call for safe cycling provision on University Avenue. Tell the University and the Council that #paintisnotprotection. You don’t need a bike to take part. This protest is especially for those who don’t cycle now, but want to.

Meet us outside the Wolfson Medical Building at 12 noon. We will then form our human cycle lane.

If you are not taking part, but are passing by, take a quick snap and post your photo to twitter with the hashtag #paintisnotprotection. Let Glasgow City Council and the University of Glasgow know that this is not how we want to see our city develop.