Perhaps the single most important tool to promote cycling may be the humble bollard, used to prevent through traffic. It is relatively inexpensive and can be erected quickly…. such low-cost modal filters can increase safety by reducing through traffic, while retaining cycle and pedestrian access. Provided they have real effect, swift, pragmatic interventions are preferred over elaborate and costly ones.
>
> [Department for Transport](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment%5Fdata/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
> In its simplest form, a is a physical restriction (a row of bollards, for example) which people can travel through by walking, wheeling or cycling, but not by motor vehicle.
>
> [Sustrans](https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design-contents/design-guide/all/51-design-tools?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
> A **modal filter** is a feature used to limit through-journeys along a street by certain modes of transport \[motor vehicles\]. Modal filters are used to achieve and are part of the toolbox of .
>
> [Cycling Embassy of Great Britain](https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/modal-filter?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
> A point closure is another term for a filter. However, 'modal filter' is the recommended term, because these measures do not actually 'close' the street to people walking and cycling, they only prevent motor traffic passing through a specific point, or from driving through an area.
>
> [Cycling Embassy of Great Britain](https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/point-closure?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
#### One-way streets
The description for **one-way streets** does not include any explanation as to how they promote the Places for People aims. As a design intervention they do not make it easier to cycle, nor make it safer for children to play outside and have only a limited impact on shortcuts.
To compare a car study, the old one-way streets off Kings Heath High Street allowed through-traffic, had traffic calming and yet were removed as part of that Places for People scheme because they were rat runs and unsafe for cycling. The modal filters created a network of quiet side roads that enable cycling. There are newly proposed one-way streets in Kings Heath, but their key element is that they are loops that prevent through traffic.
The proposals in the consultation do not appear to have learnt lessons from other areas of Birmingham.
The description of **shared use path** does not explain how they will be **“**designed for all types of users including pedestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists”.
> In urban areas, the conversion of a footway to shared use should be regarded as a last resort. Shared use facilities are generally not favoured by either pedestrians or cyclists, particularly when flows are high. It can create particular difficulties for visually impaired people. Actual conflict may be rare, but the interactions between people moving at different speeds can be perceived to be unsafe and inaccessible, particularly by vulnerable pedestrians. This adversely affects the comfort of both types of user, as well as directness for the cyclist.
>
> [Cycle infrastructure design guidance](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment%5Fdata/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
This appears contrary to the aims of Places for People and, if the proposed design does address these concerns, it should be explained how in the consultation.
### Kerb adjustments at junctions
We welcome the proposal for **kerb adjustments at junctions**. The consultation may be improved by clearly showing a diagram of how the benefits are realised. The Manual for Streets is a good example:
Birmingham has many LTNs, some decades old. See for example the area of Bournville around Kingfisher Way. This area was designed to minimise through traffic. Birmingham City Council may adopt a different label and local definition, as some other authorities have done, but we believe they are one of many important interventions to realise the Places for People aims and not labelling them is counterproductive.
### Related but separately funded schemes
It would also be helpful to explain that the Places for People scheme is not a single one-off intervention. It’s aims will be supported by:
- a series of local schemes, such as the traffic calming works to be done at the junction of Bournville Lane and Selly Oak Road which has been proposed in response to the concerns of local residents about the safety of the crossing
- the ongoing continuing implementation of the Birmingham Transport Plan, including for example the introduction of the city centre circulation plan
- future steps to be developed – and consulted on – in response to the result of the implementation of the current scheme. This could, for example, include further work to improve the area around Bournville Green.
On a more general point, none of the amenities (schools, GPs, shopping areas, places of work, places of worship, bus routes) are marked on the consultation map. People travel along routes to and from places. The design process should clearly take routes into account, and this process should be clearly explained in the consultation.
### Concern that the design is not linked to a network
Bournville and Cotteridge clearly do not exist in isolation. If the interventions in this design are going to reduce private motor vehicle use and enable active travel and public transport, it must fit into a coherent Birmingham wide network.
There is little indication that thought has been given to linking the cycle routes with existing or proposed cycle routes in the city. An element of the proposed infrastructure may connect to the proposed continuation of the blue route down the Bristol Road to Longbridge. However, currently there is some very poor cycle infrastructure here: Paint on the road most of the way between Selly Oak Triangle and Northfield; shared use between Bournville Lane and St Laurence Road which doesn't continue over side roads and drives and has a very poor surface. We are concerned there are fast 85th percentile speeds too. Furthermore, the continuation of the blue route is not due to be delivered until 2027.
Likewise, by not cycling in both directions on Mary Vale Rd, an easy win for the LCWIP is being missed as this would provide for a low-traffic cycling route between Northfield-Bournville-Stirchley. There are other similar missed opportunities.
Despite isochrone maps in the study document, there is little indication any thought has been given to linking safe cycle routes with the three train stations. Bar one shared use path to Bournville Station. However, even this limited connectivity to the train station is concerning, on two points:
1. It is a shared use path despite all the negative elements of that design option, not a segregated cycle track, despite there being plenty of width on that section or Bournville Lane
2. The Bournville Lane entrance to the station only provides access to the platforms via steep steps. Access would be much more useful via the Mary Vale Road entrance which has ramps to both platforms and to the canal towpath
Aside from that connection, there is nothing that links to Selly Oak or Kings Norton Stations. (We note the existing cycle route to the east of the study area. However, this is a narrow canal towpath. It is shared use, has few access and egress points, is largely inaccessible to adapted cycle users, and feels unsafe. It falls below the standard of cycling infrastructure that Birmingham needs to meet the aims of the Places for People programmes, Birmingham Transport Plan and other relevant strategies.)
If there was a modal filter on Langleys Road, this would link the proposed on-road cycleway to the blue sections of cycleway around the Selly Oak Triangle and thus to the station; the current proposal of cycle route on College Walk does not connect to proper cycle infrastructure on Bristol Road, until the A38 blue route extension from Selly Oak to Longbridge is completed.
In the Netherlands [nearly half of all train journeys start with a bike ride](https://dutchcycling.nl/knowledge/blogs-by-experts/the-bicycle-train-combination-a-ticket-to-success/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). We consider the lack of ambition for this type of public transport integration a notable failure in this scheme.
Another example of network planning concerns is regarding local schools in the area. Selly Oak Road has two schools; nearby Northfield Road has one; Woodbrooke Road has two schools. There will be no apparent improvement to the road danger around these schools with these proposals. School streets, with bus gates, would help.
In general, the proposed new routes (and LCWIP routes cited in the study) demonstrate little attempt to use the key locations around the area to inform the design. It appears that this project fails to take full advantage of the valuable opportunity to contribute to a coherent network of active travel and public transport routes.
### Concern with the Transport Study
We note the transport study and welcome the use of some data and modelling to help inform the consultation.
However; there does not appear to be any data regarding the current flow of pedestrians, people cycling, people scooting, nor qualitative data regarding how much people currently socialise or play on their streets, and the reasons why and why not (there is census data, this is insufficient for these purposes). These are the aims of the whole project and we suggest that measuring these elements should be a central element of implementation.
Furthermore, the various proposed mitigations on boundary roads listed in the Transport Study are all focused on mitigating impact on the flow of motor vehicles. Notwithstanding the issue of induced demand potentially counteracting attempts to reduce traffic by improving its flow, we are concerned there are few active travel or amenity focused mitigations. (the use of boundary road in this context is slightly problematic given the alternative use of that term to describe roads that immediately border low traffic neighbourhoods. The definition in the study is not the same as this).
> \[car traffic filled\] the interest of the politicians and the planners. Every city had a traffic department that counted cars but no city had a department for people and public spaces. No city had any knowledge of how their cities were being used by people – but they did know how traffic used the city.
>
> All cities have traffic departments and statistics for traffic and parking. Do you know of any city with a department for pedestrians and public life? Hardly any city even has good data concerning the people who use the city. People in cities tend to be invisible and poorly represented in the planning process.
>
> Jan Gehl, Urban Designer
The failure to measure indicators that will demonstrate the success or failure of the Places for People schemes is an oversight that should be rectified.
### Concern with individual design elements
There are well known and significant engineering drawbacks to the use of **on road cycle routes** in mixed traffic, **one-way streets**, **shared use paths**, speed cushions and certain types of **traffic calming**. We summarise some of these below:
We would like confirmation that the proposed **on-road cycle routes** have had the volume and speed of traffic measured to ensure it falls within the appropriate “mixed traffic” green section of the cycle infrastructure design guidance:
. You can [watch a recording of the live stream on Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/birmingham.live/videos/288108936997876).
## Our three asks
**West Midlands Police** to:
- Resource policing of this issue by:
- Establishing a task force of dedicated officers to prevent crime that affects vulnerable road users
- Tasking Safer Neighbourhood Teams with policing anti-social driving
- Properly resource transparent, third-party reporting that always provides feedback
**Birmingham City Council** to:
- Achieve [2025, not 2027](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/2025-not-2027-accelerating-delivery-with-a-games-mindset/): Relentlessly accelerate the implementation of funded schemes and Transport Plan, and give timescales for new road safety measures
---
### Our response to West Midlands Police's joint statement
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-joint-west-midlands-police-birmingham-city-council-transport-for-west-midlands-statement/
Last updated: 2023-06-18T20:51:45.000Z
> On Sunday 18 June 2023, West Midlands Police, Birmingham City Council and Transport for West Midlands published a .
Better Streets for Birmingham welcomes the fact that our demonstration today on Sunday 18 June 2023 in Kings Heath, Birmingham has prompted West Midlands Police, Birmingham City Council and Transport for West Midlands to come together to discuss the epidemic of dangerous driving on our roads. The fact that our public bodies have made this statement, acknowledges they recognise the strength and depth of anger and frustration among the people of Birmingham who witness dangerous and aggressive driving on our roads every day.
We are grateful for West Midlands Police’s swift and immediate response to the collision last Thursday involving two people including a child in Kings Heath. But this level of police activity came too late as both victims remain seriously injured in hospital.
We call for our police force to tackle the dangerous and aggressive behaviour on our roads that we see on a day-to-day basis, across all of Birmingham and the wider region’s neighbourhoods. We need prevention, not reaction.
We do not feel the Police’s statement goes far enough as it offers no action for change. Especially in light of the fact that eight people’s lives have been seriously changed or ended in just four weeks. Driving offences continue to be commonplace, putting all road users at risk.
We call on the Police to create a detailed plan for a step change in enforcement and behaviour change. We will write to the Police next week with actions we would like to see as part of this plan, for example, improved third-party reporting and a more robust local roads policing approach, supported by Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
We call on Birmingham City Council, Transport for West Midlands and West Midlands Police to urgently hold a press conference to declare this endemic road violence an emergency in our city.
We continue to have constructive conversations with Birmingham City Council and the Mayor of the West Midlands. But we are painfully aware that conversations are not enough. The people of Birmingham need action.
---
### Response to the Leader
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/response-to-the-leader/
Last updated: 2023-06-16T10:00:00.000Z
> This response follows to
**Councillor John Cotton,**
Council Leader, Birmingham City Council
Cc: Councillor Liz Clements,
Cabinet Member for Transport, Birmingham City Council
Sent by email
16 June 2023
Dear Councillor Cotton
Thank you for your timely reply dated 15 June 2023\. We are saddened that since our letter, a 12-year-old cyclist has been killed, and a woman and child seriously injured.
We welcome and look forward to the outcome of the comprehensive review of internal operations within the Transportation and Highways Department.
We also welcome the acceleration of road safety priorities, in particular:
- No speed limit above 30mph in the city. We note that there is also a rolling programme of reducing residential streets to 20mph.
- Piloting for increased ‘green times’. We undertook an audit of the crossings in Harborne and Quinton, which received a positive response from Transport officers. We are willing to collect data about crossings in more wards if it helps officers. Please can we clarify whether this means longer or more frequent pedestrian/cycle crossing phases?
- The partnerships with other authorities and agencies for enforcement and behaviour change. We will be looking for clear measures and indicators of success to be identified and reported on, and a transparent approach to resource prioritisation.
We would appreciate clarification of your comments on infrastructure. We hope that you are saying that we need immediate action, and as infrastructure has a long lead time, we need other measures in place first. But infrastructure will follow. We are concerned, however, that it could be read as saying that the council won’t be building much active travel infrastructure.
With regards to your comments about our request to the Sustainability and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, we are hopeful that the Committee's decision to include it in their work programme this week would not put this at risk.
This request is intended to provide for much greater transparency, and better communications, around the status of schemes within the transport plan. We feel this would benefit both the delivery and quality of schemes.
On this note, we would like to request a meeting with you, Councillor Clements and Phil Edwards to gain a greater understanding of the steps within a scheme’s delivery. We would prefer this to take place in the early afternoon of Thursday 29 June and ask that it be prioritised in your diary.
We would like to take this opportunity to underline the importance of the Council challenging itself to deliver at a faster pace, as it is demonstrating by bringing forward road safety measures.
**Our challenge to the Council remains clear: 2025, not 2027.** For every scheme, the question should be asked: within the challenges and constraints, what can we do to speed this critical intervention up?
We will continue to be critical friends with, and constructively challenge, the Council as it undertakes the transformation of mobility around our city. We are excited to see plans translate to delivery, providing better streets for all of Birmingham.
We look forward to meeting you.
Kind regards
Martin Price and Mat MacDonald, Co-chairs,
**Better Streets for Birmingham**
---
### Council Leader responds to Better Streets for Birmingham's open letter
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/council-leader-responds-to-better-streets-for-birminghams-open-letter/
Last updated: 2023-06-15T11:00:00.000Z
> On Thursday 15 June, Councillor John Cotton responded to .
>
> We on Friday 16 June.
Dear Martin and Mat
**Re: Better Streets for Birmingham letter dated 9 June 2023**
Thank you for your letter on behalf of Better Streets for Birmingham regarding the accelerated delivery of active travel schemes.
The Council is horrified and saddened by the recent tragic incidents on the city’s roads involving cyclists and pedestrians. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.
We agree that we cannot wait for new infrastructure if we are to make the vision set out in the Birmingham Transport Plan a reality. An infrastructure-led approach to delivering behavioural and cultural change would be excessively expensive, slower to achieve, and ultimately doomed to failure. We need to move far more quickly if we are to meet the range of challenges currently facing the city.
The Birmingham Transport Plan makes clear that a significant reduction in vehicular traffic is necessary if we are to achieve Vision Zero in Birmingham, where users can walk and cycle along the city’s streets without fear of death or serious injury, and we can all enjoy clean air.
In this context, it is the Council’s view that environmental change, specifically through systemic reductions in the speed, volume and dominance of vehicular traffic must take a higher priority than the delivery of mode-specific infrastructure. This is because Birmingham already benefits from a dense network of well-constructed public highways. Transformation of these public spaces to prioritise people, rather than vehicles will deliver more rapid behavioural and societal change.
The Commonwealth Games provided an unprecedented opportunity to showcase Birmingham and the wider region to the world. Although the scale of funding and resource available to deliver this major sporting event was arguably unique, the cooperative approach of all the partners involved was something that we can and must replicate. To deliver the Birmingham Transport Plan and Vision Zero at the pace needed, we have to work together towards a common goal, particularly with our partners in West Midlands Police and Transport for the West Midlands. This is definitely a time for one team, one vision.
In pursuit of this, the Council is currently developing a detailed Delivery Plan to underpin the Birmingham Transport Plan (BTP:DP), together with a revised and fully aligned Road Safety Strategy and Network Management Plan. This multi-faceted approach includes a comprehensive review of the internal operations of the Transportation and Highways services (including governance, public consultation and engagement processes) to promote a one team, one vision approach in our delivery.
Additionally, as part of the refresh of the Road Safety Strategy, and in recognition of the urgent need for increased pace, a number of priorities are currently being accelerated for early delivery:
1. The existing inefficient Road Safety Scheme prioritisation process has now been ceased, and no new schemes will be entered into this process. The Council will, however, honour any existing commitments where a strong business case for intervention has been identified;
2. All existing urban 40mph roads in Birmingham will have their speed limits reduced to 30mph, to standardise the speed limit on arterial routes across the city, in preparation for enhanced enforcement;
3. A pilot will be commenced to provide increased ‘green times’ for active travel modes at a number of signal controlled junctions and crossings;
4. In partnership with West Midlands Police, the Council is now working towards a zero tolerance approach to enforcement, where inappropriately parked cars that cause an obstruction are towed away and significantly more speeding vehicles are caught, fined and prosecuted as part of a major uplift in pan-organisational enforcement capability; and
5. In partnership with Transport for West Midlands and regional road safety partners, the Council will actively support the delivery of a major road safety / behavioural change campaign across the metropolitan area, to highlight the significant dangers posed by dangerous driver behaviours.
We note your reference to the CRSTS programme. The regional coordination of this significant funding stream is being led by Transport for West Midlands, with the Council and the other six metropolitan authorities working in partnership. The Council is actively engaged in this vital process, and making good progress with developing the range of schemes allocated for delivery across the city.
Whilst we welcome your writing to the Chair of the Sustainability and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, it should be noted that progress with the Birmingham Transport Plan: Delivery Plan is already a standing item for the work of that committee, which is inclusive of active travel modes and road safety. Requests to consider mode-specific infrastructure effectively act to unpackage the coordinated, multimodal approach set out in the Birmingham Transport Plan, potentially putting access to funding at risk.
Finally, I’d like to thank you for your continued advocacy and support for the Birmingham Transport Plan. The value of your campaigns cannot be underestimated in view of the scale of the challenge we face. We have to take people in the city with us on the journey towards a low traffic, liveable city with streets for people; with your help, constructive challenge and enthusiasm, I am confident we can achieve the changes our city needs.
Yours sincerely
**Councillor John Cotton**
**Leader of Birmingham City Council**
---
### 2025, not 2027: Accelerating delivery with a games mindset
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/2025-not-2027-accelerating-delivery-with-a-games-mindset/
Last updated: 2023-06-09T05:00:00.000Z
> **Update:** Since sending this letter this morning, it has been . Raising the number of recent fatalities to four - two of which were children.
**Councillor John Cotton,**
Council Leader, Birmingham City Council
**Deborah Cadman,**
Chief Executive Officer, Birmingham City Council
Cc: Councillor Liz Clements,
Cabinet Member for Transport, Birmingham City Council
Craig Cooper, Paul Kitson, Dr Justin Varney and Richard Brooks,
Directors on the Management team, Birmingham City Council
9 June 2023
**2025, not 2027: Accelerating delivery with a games mindset**
Dear all,
We are writing following more incidences of road violence with two cyclists and a four-year-old child being killed, as well as two other cyclists being seriously injured.
We know that preventing road violence and improving air quality requires better cycling and walking infrastructure. This must happen concurrently with the vision for fewer cars.
In recent years, consultations have been and gone with a response time of years. For example, the Bradford Street scheme, Bristol Road (Selly Oak) enhancement scheme, and Places for People schemes are all now overdue for delivery. When updates are shared, the schemes have barely moved forward. We need an urgent and robust assessment of the Council’s delivery capacity, including for small measures such as Transport Regulation Orders.
We cannot afford to wait for new infrastructure. They are critical interventions.
We share the widespread concern that the delivery of funded schemes is not quick enough. We have listened to the capacity issues, but can no longer accept this as an excuse for delay.
While the Council has published several laudable and ambitious strategies and visions for a low-traffic future, we have seen that there is a severe operational constraint within transport project teams and their consultancy partners.
The Council was able to deliver collaboratively with partners before and during the Commonwealth Games. This Games mindset needs to be harnessed again for the delivery of our shared transport ambitions.
We cannot view funding delivery deadlines as implementation dates: they must be worst-case scenarios. Schemes must be delivered by 2025, not 2027.
**We challenge you, your officers and your project teams to accelerate the delivery of currently-funded schemes to 2025**
at the latest
**.**
We have three initial proposals for how timescales can be reduced:
1. Empower the Council’s transport project teams to be robust with consultancy partners when designing and implementing schemes, especially when defining timescales.
2. Produce consultation reports faster. They can take six months to produce. This can and must be shorter. Consultations are an important part of scheme development, however, they can be made more efficient.
The London Cycling Campaign [published a report](https://www.lcc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/People%5FFuture%5FStreets.pdf?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) that provides alternatives to current long-loop, summative consultations, which could further reduce timescales.
3. Review internal council processes to improve efficiency. We were encouraged to hear at the Birmingham Transport Plan Delivery Plan launch that business cases will be combined into one Cabinet submission.
The Department for Transport’s ‘Once in a Programme’ rebaselining provides an opportunity to bring forward delivery timelines on City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) schemes and their associated spending profiles. This is outlined in [section 10 of a report at today’s WMCA Board](https://governance.wmca.org.uk/documents/s10579/Report.pdf?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) and needs to be completed ahead of September’s WMCA Board meeting.
Finally, we are writing separately to the Chair of the Sustainability and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee to request the inclusion of active travel schemes within the Committee’s work programme. This will increase transparency and provide more comprehensive updates on the progress of schemes and, ultimately, the Birmingham Transport Plan.
We continue to advocate for the Birmingham Transport Plan and have been impressed by future visions, schemes and strategies. However, this must rapidly translate to delivery.
We need our funded schemes delivered by 2025, not 2027.
Kind regards
Martin Price and Mat MacDonald, Co-chairs, **Better Streets for Birmingham**
David Cox, Chair, **Pushbikes - The Birmingham Cycle Campaign**
Denis Murphy**, Birmingham Group Living Streets**
Shivaji Shiva, **Cycling Works Birmingham**
Birgit Kehrer, **ChangeKitchen CIC**
Naomi Fisher, **ROAM**
**Extinction Rebellion (XR) Birmingham**
Michael Bryant, **Moseley Missiles Cycling Club**
Fabio Henriques, **Biclas B12**
Rob Anderson, **More Than A Cyclist**
Tim Wall, **Cycling UK Local Representative for Sutton Coldfield and Erdington**
Libby Harris, **Birmingham Friends of the Earth**
David Isgrove, Chair and Radley Russell, Vice Chair, **Moseley Forum**
Steve Halliday, Chair, **Better Streets for Moseley**
Huw Davies, Chair, **Better Streets for North Moseley**
Kevin Carmody, Chair, **Better Streets for Harborne and Quinton**
### Opinion: Alternative designs for Kings Heath & Moseley LTN Phase 2
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/opinion-alternative-designs-for-kings-heath-moseley-ltn-phase-2/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:23.000Z
> BS4B member, Paul Manzotti, shares his alternative design for Phase 2 of the Kings Heath & Moseley LTN.
Having detailed the problems with the design of Phase 2 in my [previous article](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/opinion-appraising-the-design-for-kings-heath-moseley-ltn-phase-2/), I offer a better design.
## Design principles
I will first detail the principles that have driven my thinking. This should make it easier to understand my design choices.
### Put modal filters closer to the High Street
To stop residents having to use the High Street, move the modal filters closer to the High Street. This will reduce the amount of traffic needing to use the High Street. It will reduce the number of cars queueing to turn right off the High Street. Whether it’s enough to be noticeable on the traffic nightmare that is the High Street is debatable.
Access to car parks requires them to not be right at the High Street junctions.
### Minimise one-way streets
One-way streets by themselves do not provide safe cycling routes. Making a street one-way to allow conversion of a lane to a cycle lane is fine.
One-way loops are also avoided, to reduce speeding.
### Minimise traffic past Kings Heath Primary School
If we can’t protect our children from pollution at their place of learning, then we doom ourselves as a species. Removing rat-running from Valentine is good. Providing an access route to Asda past the school is not. Any design must minimise traffic past the school.
The proposed school street will make the area safe twice a day. But will not reduce pollution levels during the rest of the day.
### Reduce dangerous driving on Billesley Lane
Installing chicanes on the full length of Billesley Lane will be very expensive. Instead, stop Billesley Lane being a through road. Installing a modal filter would cost a lot less. It would stop people racing through the area.
### Remove buses from Addison Road
Remove all bus routes from Addison Road. With the volume of residents’ on-street parking, it is no longer suitable for buses. Buses could instead go down the A435 onto Wheelers Lane. Replace the expensive bus gate with a cheaper modal filter at the High Street end. This will result in some residents being further from bus stops, but is a price worth paying to improve the road.
### A protected cycle lane on Wheelers/Howard Road East
As part of the former outer ring road, these are busy roads. They are also wide enough to include a protected cycle lane on. This will enable more children to cycle to school, reducing the number driven there.
### More public spaces and greenery
If it is possible to reclaim road space, turn it into public squares and add greenery. As well as providing spaces for the community to use, they would be pleasant spaces to visit.
# Proposed LTN Cells
There are many ways to create cells that fit with the principles outlined above. After a lot of deliberation, these are the designs I’m happiest with. But I'm not wedded to these. Anything that fits with the principles I've worked with works for me.
## Cell 1: Mossfield Road
This is the southernmost cell in the region. My only change is to move the modal filter from the Mossfield Road end of Portman Road to the Wheelers Lane end. This is to reduce the amount of traffic that would need to cross the proposed cycle lane on Wheelers.
## Cell 2: Brook Lane, Springfield Road and Billesley Lane
There’s no getting away from the fact that this is a beast of a cell. But either this cell or cell 4 have to be large.
### Brook Lane and Barn Lane
I understand why Barn Lane residents prefer a modal filter on their road to a one-way street. But to allow more cycling infrastructure, a one-way street is my preference. This would allow Brook Lane to be one-way, freeing up the golf course side of the road for a protected lane.
With no through-traffic on Billesley Lane, traffic volumes on Barn Lane would reduce. The objection residents had to bus traffic would also not be an issue if buses no longer used Addison Road.
## Roads off the High Street
With no need for a bus gate on Addison Road, move the modal filter at the High Street end. The same goes for Drayton Road. On Institute Road, place the filter after Kwik Fit. This allows access to Bishop Challener school, the car parks, and the businesses.
Heathfield Road should have its filter after the Community Centre. And Poplar Road should have its filter after the Asda entrance, and be a School Street.
### Springfield Road and Valentine Road
To protect the school from pollution, install a filter after the school on Valentine Road.
Add a modal filter at the bottom of School Road and leave the existing one on Cambridge Road. Replace the roundabout with a T-junction for Springfield/Poplar/Valentine. Create a new public square on it with land from the church grounds, School Road and Cambridge Road.
A resident of Woodfield Road recently contacted me. Phase 1 resulted in a lot of through-traffic on their road, unbeknownst to me. This may be why the council proposed removing the Cambridge Road filters. Whilst Phase 2 should reduce this traffic a lot, a modal filter could go at the Springfield end of the road.
### Billesley Lane
There are many choices for the boundaries of this cell. I’ve settled on this one so that cell 3 is not too small. The aim of this cell is to stop through-traffic on Billesley Lane. Filters after the Greenhill Road junction of Billesley Lane, and on Dyott Road will do that.
Filters at the top of Blenheim, Prospect and Greenhill Road set the western boundary of the cell. One on School Road near its junction with Cotton Lane sets the northern boundary.
You could instead put filters on Blenheim, Prospect and Greenhill before Clarence Road. This would move these roads into cell 3\. But this would put more traffic on Valentine Road.
Finally, there could be a filter at the junction with Clarence Road.
## Cell 3: Valentine Road and School Road
This cell was smaller in my original design. It only covered Valentine Road, Ashfield Avenue, and Ashfield Road. This did make Greenend Road a long way from its cell exit road. So, I moved the filters (as described in cell 2), to add Greenend and School Road to this cell.
You could instead move the School Road filter from Cotton Lane to Prospect Lane. This would put Greenend and most of Greenhill into cell 4.
I am minded to have the least amount of traffic on Valentine Road. Its junction with the High Street is a dangerous one. Less cars using it would make it safer for children at Queensbridge School. But two extra streets in this cell shouldn't make much difference to traffic levels here.
Valentine Road needs a filter after the school, to reduce traffic as much as possible past the school.
## Cell 4: Oxford Road and School Road
### Oxford Road
With Wake Green Road too narrow for a protected cycle lane, the only route to Moseley is along Oxford Road. Banning on-street parking allows space for a lane on each side. This is my preferred design when there are driveways on both sides of the road. That may be too difficult to put in place.
Instead, place modal filters at the Billesley Lane and Wake Green Road ends. This would reduce traffic levels, providing a safe cycling space.
### School Road
Complete the cell with a filter on School Road, past its junction with Cotton Lane. The existing filter position is fine as it is. Or, as detailed in cell 3, the filter could move down to Prospect Road to include Greenend in this cell. A filter at the Clarence Road end of Greenhill Road would also move Greenhill into this cell. This is another design decision that I’m happy with either way.
## Cell 5: Dyott Road and St Agnes Road
### St Agnes Road
The biggest need here is to stop it being a cut-through between Yardley Wood and Wake Green Roads. A modal filter at the Yardley Wood Road junction would achieve that.
###
Colmore Crescent
Turning this into a gyratory will do little to stop its current use as a racetrack. Instead, close Colmore Crescent at the Dyott Road end. With the only driveway being by Oxford Road, turn that 50m stretch into a public square. The same goes for the northern section of the road, which has one driveway near the St Agnes end.
### Dyott Road
To stop through-traffic on Billesley Lane requires a modal filter on Dyott Road. As there are no houses in the bottom 100m of the road, greening it is an option. A cycle lane would provide a safe route through the greenery.
# Boundary Roads
All boundary roads should have 20 mph speed limits. Removing the speed differential to residential streets will result in less speeding.
## Coldbath Lane needs a modal filter
The first design of the scheme had Coldbath Lane as a boundary road. When expressing incredulity at this to the design engineer, he admitted that he hadn’t been down the road. The volume of residential on-street parking makes this road an unsuitable boundary road.
The current proposal has Coldbath Lane as one-way. This is going to result in a lot of speeding traffic on that road, making it more dangerous than it currently is. It is also suggested that it could be a contraflow cycling route. Again, there is not the space available for this.
Instead, place a modal filter at the Brook Lane end of Coldbath Road. This will make it a safer cycling route. Close the roundabout exit to the school, and replace the roundabout with a T-junction. Control it with traffic lights.
## Howard Road / Alcester Road junction
I’ve not seen anything in the scheme about altering the sequence of the traffic lights on this junction. I’ve been driving for the last couple of years as if this LTN already existed, so I use Howard Road to get home. With the current volumes of traffic at the junction, you are lucky to get 3 cars to turn right per green light.
Each direction along Howard Road requires its own traffic lights phase. I’d also like to see this become a scramble crossing.
## Howard Road East
I’m torn on what needs to happen to this road. The level of on-street parking narrows the road too much. Royal Mail uses it as an overflow car park. There should be a ban on-street parking. This will impact Royal Mail, but might encourage them to use electric cargo bikes instead.
A further option is to make the road one-way towards the roundabout with Wheelers Lane. Make the Wheelers Lane to Alcester Road section one-way. This would free up a lane on Howard Road East for a protected cycle lane. It would need a set of traffic lights at the junction with Alcester Road.
## Yardley Wood Road
Another road that, like Billesley Lane, suffers from horrendous speeding. Remove the dual carriageway sections. Reduce the speed limit to 20mph and consider installing average speed cameras.
Put a protected cycle lane from Swanshurst Road to St Agnes Road. It could extend to Wake Green Road, though there's a section that is borderline too narrow for that. Again, driveways need it to be a single lane on each side of the road.
Provide a raised zebra crossing to the entrance to Moseley Bog and by St Agnes Road. This provides safe crossing points and stops speeding.
Make the junction with Wake Green Road people-centric. There are no pedestrian phases for the traffic lights, yet 5 lanes to cross. Reduce the exits to a single lane. Each direction only has one lane going straight across anyway. Do the two roads with three lanes need a dedicated left-turn lane?
## Incentivise people
There are incentives the council could offer to increase the chance of success of the scheme. These are the same ones I mentioned in my article on improving Phase 1.
Offer free monthly bus passes to residents in the area. Free passes for the railways once the station opens. Set up electric car club schemes. The less people need cars to get around, the less they need cars at all.
Introduce paid parking permits for the whole area. This will help stop people parking to go to the train station. Pricing can incentivise owning less cars. Increase the cost for every extra car owned, for having a drive, for larger cars. We need to reclaim our streets for people.
With space freed up, install parklets, bike hangers and plant trees. Turn our roads back from car parks into lovely places to be in.
## Design for success
I understand the council’s desire to listen to feedback during consultations. I fear that this has led them to produce a design for this phase of the LTN that does not optimise for success.
The official line is that changes are possible after implementation of the scheme. The lack of change to Phase 1 does not lead me to believe that will happen. This makes it critical to get the design right the first time.
I offer that my proposals are more likely to result in the success of the LTN. They stop all through-traffic, so reduce dangerous driving and speeding. They provide safe cycling routes and protected cycle lanes. And the basic measures cost less than the council's designs.
I hope the council will re-evaluate their designs in short order. More residents deserve better streets across Birmingham.
### Opinion: Appraising the design for Kings Heath & Moseley LTN Phase 2
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/opinion-appraising-the-design-for-kings-heath-moseley-ltn-phase-2/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:24.000Z
> BS4B member, Paul Manzotti, shares his take on the proposed design for Phase 2 of the Kings Heath & Moseley LTN.
## How we got here
The original Kings Heath & Moseley LTN proposal consisted of four cells. Two on either side of the High Street, with aspirations of one below Howard Road. A backlash over the use of Addison Road as a boundary road sent the east side proposal back to the drawing board.
## The latest design
After a mere three years, we finally have a new design, now called Phase 2 of the scheme. It consists of the following four cells:
### Cell 1: High Street
This runs along the High Street, from Addison Road to Ashfield Avenue. Removing the modal filter on Poplar Road, it has a bus gate on Addison Road. Diagonal filters create many one-way sections. The one-way sections allow contraflow cycling (against the direction of traffic).
### Cell 2: Oxford Road
The School Road filter moves south of Greenhill Road, with one added before Clarence Road. A filter on Oxford Road at the Billesley Lane end creates a cell up to Wake Green Road.
### Cell 3: Billesley Lane
The third, and largest, cell encompasses the Billesley Lane area from Brook Lane up to Wake Green Road. It includes traffic calming measures on Billesley Lane to reduce speeding. Colmore Crescent, Dyott Road and St Agnes Road become a one-way gyratory system. I assume this is also to deter speeding.
On the edge of this cell, Coldbath Road is one-way towards Yardley Wood Road. Barn Lane has a filter at the Addison Road end. Existing filters on Cambridge Road are no more. Instead, a diagonal filter prevents traffic reaching Valentine and Poplar Roads.
The Springfield Road junction with Melton Road has a filter blocking it to vehicles. A diagonal filter at the Institute/Melton junction creates a one-way system.
### Cell 4: Mossfield Road
A small cell around Mossfield Road. A modal filter midway stops through-traffic.
## Thoughts on the design
### Ending rat-running
Starting with the positive, it ends rat-running on Institute, Heathfield, Valentine, and Springfield. They are not suitable for the volume of traffic they receive. Reducing the pollution inflicted on Kings Heath Primary School is a welcome move. But the proposed design to achieve this baffles me.
Vicarage to Institute is quite the rat-run at the moment. Closing Institute Road to through-traffic should see less cars use Vicarage Road. I fear this may be offset by letting cars turn right onto the High Street. One to keep an eye on after implementation.
### Polluting Kings Heath Primary
The removal of the Poplar Road bollard is disappointing. Making Valentine > Poplar an access road to Asda is a backwards step. Pollution levels in the school and playgrounds will not reduce as much as they could. And for what purpose? To save shoppers a few minutes when driving to the shop? Is that more important than our childrens' health?
### Forcing residents onto the High Street
I have lived on streets off the High Street for since 2000\. I’ve tried to avoid driving on it for that entire period, as the traffic on that road has always been a nightmare.
If I was a resident on the Phase 2 side roads, I would be very disappointed that the scheme forces me onto the High Street.
### These are not the one-way streets you are looking for.
I understand that the council wants to listen to residents’ proposals. But proposals that won't work? I am talking about one-way streets, often raised as alternatives to modal filters.
An LTN is part of the cycling network, providing safe routes through neighbourhoods. It does this by reducing both the amount and speed of traffic. I know from the one-way section on Grange Road, cars travel faster on them. The only thing stopping speeding on these narrow residential roads is oncoming vehicles. One-way sections will not reduce vehicle speeds.
Creating a loop of Heathfield and Institute Roads is also a strange decision. It risks people driving round it looking for free on-street parking.
How can these streets be safe cycling routes with speeding vehicles on them? They can't.
### You want me to cycle where?
The suggestion of contraflow cycling lanes on the one-way sections beggars belief. I often cycle on Heathfield Road, and the safe distance from parked cars is the middle of the road. There is no room for contraflow cycling on these roads.
Also, some drivers will not be aware of contraflow cycling, causing potential conflict.
Has the design team visited these roads, let alone ridden them on a bike?
### Billesley Lane
Billesley Lane suffers a lot from dangerous driving. There are regular accidents caused by speeding. The speed humps do not slow people down, especially those in larger cars. To address this requires action.
But the proposed measures, chicanes, rely on traffic to slow vehicles down. I can see people still speeding through them when possible.
On top of that, at around a kilometre long, this is an expensive solution. Whilst safety must improve on Billesley Lane, this is not the solution I’d choose.
## In summary
The three and a half year delay this phase suffered was disappointing. But it pales into insignificance compared to the designs themselves.
I hope I've made it clear what the issues are with the proposed designs. They do not solve enough of the area's problems. They do not provide safe cycling routes across the whole area. As such, they do not provide value for money. Poor designs risk turning people against liveable neighbourhoods. Success demands good design.
In the [next article](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/opinion-alternative-designs-for-kings-heath-moseley-ltn-phase-2/), I detail alternative designs with less issues, less cost, and more success.
### Opinion - A new City Centre, for a new era
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/opinion-a-new-city-centre-for-a-new-era/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:25.000Z
[](https://55colmorerow.co.uk/place/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
Copyright [55 Colmore Row](https://55colmorerow.co.uk/place/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
> [*Be Bold, Birmingham*](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/be-bold-birmingham/)*!* is a series of blogs where Better Streets for Birmingham member Paul Manzotti suggests some big changes he’d like to see in the city.
We need to think of our city centre in a new way. We should prioritise the needs of people, not cars. Instead of making small changes to roads, we need to reset the city map. Pedestrianise all streets, then see if vehicles need access. Remove all on-street parking (apart from some disabled spots).
The area around Colmore Row contains some of the nicest period architecture left in the city. There are also a high number of hospitality businesses. A people-centric approach to the area would turn it into a jewel in Birmingham's crown.
Here are my proposals for how to achieve that ambition.
## A city-wide delivery policy
We need a council-level conversation around last-mile deliveries across the entire city. For example, Tesco on New Street receives 1-2 HGV deliveries a day, but should use electric vans.
Build HGV hubs on the outskirts of the city, with electric vans completing the last few miles.
Smaller deliveries, such as those to restaurants, should use electric cargo bikes.
## South of Great Charles Street
Snow Hill Queensway provides access to the train station and Livery Street to its car park. Pedestrianise every other road. Either allow limited access to ground floor car parks, or else close them. The [Workplace Parking Levy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49977199?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) in the [Birmingham Transport Plan](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/thoughts-on-the-birmingham-transport-summit/) incentivises their eventual closure.
Edmund Street and Margaret Street are bus routes onto Great Charles Street. Keep the buses on Newhall Street instead, and allow left turns onto Great Charles Street. This allows the pedestrianisation of Edmund and Margaret Streets.
Newhall Street is a vital connection to the Jewellery Quarter. Install a protected two-way cycle lane on it.
Once the A38 tunnels are no more, reduce this barrier to the Jewellery Quarter to two lanes. Making access easier would transform both the area and the Jewellery Quarter as a whole.
## Colmore Row
Only buses need to use Colmore Row and Newhall Street. Install a bus gate on Colmore Row after the Livery Street junction. Should taxis use Colmore Row, or is access to Snow Hill and Livery Street enough?
Create a one-way loop along Snow Hill Queensway, Colmore Row, and Livery Street. If Snow Hill car park closes, pedestrianise Livery Street. Create a turning area outside Snow Hill to allow access to the drop-off point at Snow Hill.
The electrification of the bus fleet would remove most of the air pollution on the road. Together with the reduction in traffic, this would allow hospitality venues to flourish.
## Cathedral Square
Pedestrianise Upper Bennetts Hill, Waterloo Street and Temple Row. Pedestrianisation does not stop deliveries to New Street, neither will it here.
Pedestrianisation would allow a cafe culture to flourish in this area. It would also free it up as an event space all year round.
## Corporation Street to Navigation Street
Pedestrianise Corporation Street from Old Square down, and Stephenson Street. This will end the regular blocking of trams by illegal parking.
Pedestrianise from Navigation Street to the New Street Station drop-off road. Also close Pinfold Street to vehicles.
As transport links into town improve, look at closing the drop-off road to the station. We could then completely pedestrianise Navigation Street.
Longer-term, electrify all trains, and build over the train line. Build a new public square. I like the idea of a glass floor with greenery, permanent market stalls and seating. That would be quite the open-air market.
## Hill Street
Is there any reason for the section up to the Town Hall to be open to traffic? It’s a dead-end at the top, a glorified car park. Accommodate the coaches that use it elsewhere. Make this a pleasant route to Victoria Square.
Swallow Street exists to allow access to car parking. Close the car parks and pedestrianise the road. Brunel Street gives access to Swallow Street and Town Hall car park. Demolish Town Hall car park when the flyover is, freeing up land for development.
The section from Navigation Street to the entrance to the old John Lewis car park can also close to traffic. Furthermore, turn that car park into secure cycle parking. There would need to be a more accessible entrance. A bridge from Navigation Street, as it is at a higher elevation?
Make the remaining section of Hill Street one-way down to the New Street Station drop-off road. If we close that, pedestrianise the section down to Station Street.
Station Street and St Jude's Passage provide access to the NCP Car Park entrance. This is another car park that could be redeveloped. Pedestrianise Station Street, John Bright Street, Beak Street, and Suffolk Place.
Pedestrianise Hinckley Street and Theatre Approach. Only the bottom of Hill Street would be open to vehicles, allowing buses to get to the indoor markets.
## Smallbrook Queensway
The biggest improvement to this road would be to shut the unneeded entrance to the Bullring Car Park. Traffic levels would not need four lanes anymore.
Repurpose the southern carriageway as a cycle lane. Continue it up to Moor Street Queensway, Jennens Road, and Nechells Parkway. A spur up James Watt Queensway would finally join the two flagship cycle lanes we have built.
Longer term, a tram line could run down this road.
## The Chinese and Gay Quarters
Pedestrianise the entirety of Hurst Street. This would allow the many hospitality venues to expand onto the pavements. It would also hinder the shameful number of drive-by homophobic attacks in the area.
Accommodate deliveries to The Hippodrome and Ballet Company. Tourist coaches could drop-off on Essex Street or Bromsgrove Street. Pedestrianise Thorp Street and close the car park.
Place modal filters on all the roads off the A38 to stop rat-running. Then extend the A38 cycle lane to Smallbrook Queensway. Build a spur on Bromsgrove Street to Smithfield and to the cycle lane they should build on Digbeth.
## Summary
I hope I’ve persuaded you to make the city centre people-focused rather than car-focused. There have been [many](https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2020/may/what-are-the-economic-impacts-of-making-more-space-for-walking-and-cycling/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [studies ](https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/reclaiming-the-streets-the-increasing-trend-of-pedestrianisation-around-the-world/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)showing that there are economic benefits to this, as well as the more obvious health benefits. Freeing up land for development will help the city grow. And a new public square and outdoor market would be a destination in itself.
Above all, it will make for a much nicer city centre.
Once more, I find myself asking, why wouldn’t we do this?
[**Be Bold, Birmingham**](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/be-bold-birmingham/)**!**
### Opinion - Be Bold, Birmingham!
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/be-bold-birmingham/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:25.000Z
Copyright [Birmingham Mail](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/whats-on/find-things-to-do/gallery/best-views-in-birmingham-4874692?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org "Link to image on the Birmingham Mail website")
The 2022 Commonwealth Games were fantastic; the atmosphere around the city (and region) was amazing, the sport was enjoyable, the transport network worked brilliantly. If there was one mis-step, however, it was the marketing strapline "Be Bold, Be Birmingham".
Don't get me wrong, it's a great concept. The problem is that Birmingham hasn't been bold in a long time. As I made clear in [my review](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/thoughts-on-the-birmingham-transport-summit/) of the Birmingham Transport Summit, if that plan is delivered, that will truly be bold. But two years ago? No, sorry.
I have been using the phrase **Be Bold, Birmingham** since then, to make it clear that the council need to take bold action, not just talk about it. As I don't like to just criticise from the sidelines, I plan to write a series of articles outlining some bold ideas I'd love to see implemented. As ever, consider these conversation starters. I don't imagine that everything I propose is the best solution, there may be good reasons why an idea isn't feasible. But I refuse to buy the negative view that this city is unchangeable.
We can choose to live in a better city!
- [Close the A38 tunnels](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/close-the-a38-tunnels/)
- [A new city centre, for a new era](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/opinion-a-new-city-centre-for-a-new-era/)
### Thoughts on the Birmingham Transport Summit
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/thoughts-on-the-birmingham-transport-summit/
Last updated: 2023-05-03T10:12:29.000Z
> Better Streets for Birmingham member Paul Manzotti gives his thoughts on the Council's Birmingham Transport Summit, where they talked about how they're going to implement the Transport Plan released in 2021.
## Setting the scene
Time for the morning-morning-after review of the [#BhamTransportSummit](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bhamtransportsummit&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) (hey, I've got a day job that's nothing to do with transport!). This is based off memory, WhatsApp messages, and [@lauracreaven's](https://twitter.com/lauracreaven?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [live-tweeted thread](https://twitter.com/lauracreaven/status/1651134300073467904?s=20&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) of the day.
As I hope I've previously made clear, I've been disappointed at the quality and quantity of change delivered by the council over the last few years.
I say this not to rag on the council again, but to establish that I've not been a mindless cheerleader for the council's active travel agenda. Indeed, I cycled in to the #[BhamTransportSummit](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bhamtransportsummit&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) very much more in hope than expectation.
So, when I tell you that I was thrillingly gobsmacked by the level of ambition laced throughout the day's proceedings, I hope that you, too, are impressed.
## The morning session: lessons from other cities
The morning sessions were mainly memorable for the cast of speakers from cities who are further down this path than Birmingham.
The State Secretary for Urban Planning of Brussels, [@SmetPascal,](https://twitter.com/SmetPascal?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) was particularly impressive. He did a cracking job of both selling his city as a worthwhile destination, and imparting the important lessons he's learned from the battles he's fought over reducing Brussels' car dependency #BrusselsForPeople. He also dealt brilliantly with the Neanderthal who kept attempting to disrupt his presentation.
Another speaker with lessons to impart from the frontline of the move to active travel was [@Labourstone](https://twitter.com/Labourstone?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), from Waltham Forest, a council that very much offer a vision for how our urban spaces can be improved for everyone.
Nottingham Council's Nigel Hallam gave a good presentation on the success of their Workplace Parking Levy scheme, both in reducing demand for parking, and for raising funds for active travel and transport schemes. Definitely sounds like a scheme that Birmingham could benefit from.
Finally, Councillor [@duncanenright](https://twitter.com/duncanenright?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) from what the fringe right-wing culture warriors have turned into the Ground Zero of their anti-LTN campaign, Oxfordshire County Council. Again, he delivered a good talk around the challenges they have, and are, facing with their move to reduce vehicle traffic in a city that is less suited to it than many. I also enjoyed his shameless attempt at currying favour with the crowd "Hello to the best big city in the world, from the best little city in the world"; well played!
## The afternoon session: The Birmingham Transport Plan
Onto the presentation of the Birmingham Transport plan itself. Overall, what impressed me was the breadth of change proposed: all-encompassing changes to policy levers and design processes; proposals to break the silos of thinking and funding that hinder the current system; putting active travel and sustainable transportation at the heart of the planning system; aiming for a completely integrated public transport system, from both infrastructure and ticketing perspectives.
And then there was the scale of ambition for the physical changes to the city.
The four principles announced were:
1. Reallocating road space away from cars
Re-allocating a third of road space from cars to sustainable transport modes by 2030\. I'm hoping that means a lot more protected cycle lanes, as well as bus lanes. The next phase of the Birmingham Cycle Revolution will be released in 2024, hopefully it will show the same level of ambition that the rest of the plan appears to.
1. Delivering a largely traffic-free city centre
Introducing Ghent-style cells, a strategy for taxi, freight, coach and blue badge access, looking at a workplace parking levy and expanding the CAZ , and closing the A38 in town (why, yes, I did smile when I saw that!).
1. Low traffic conditions in a third of wards
More LTNs, 20mph speed limits, school streets, and controlled parking zones. Sounds ace.
Thinking holistically, they are proposing multi-purpose mobility hubs, through secure bike parking facilities at public transport facilities, especially suburban rail stations.
Pleased to hear that they are going to look at the long waits pedestrians have at traffic light crossings, something [@for\_harbquin](https://twitter.com/for%5Fharbquin?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) have recently been campaigning for!
1. Looking at parking availability and cost to manage car travel demand.
This, impressively, includes looking at all public parking streets (making me wish that I'd had time to write up my long-planned article calling for city-wide paid parking permits!)
I was particularly impressed by the aspiration to look at all the works required on a route simultaneously, rather than the current piecemeal interventions (usually drive by mode-specific funding pots, to be fair to the council).
There are also plans to look at streamlining processes for designing, approving, and delivering infrastructure projects. I hope this includes moving away from having to make a business case for every single scheme. Approve the concept of LTNs and then implement them asap!
## Overall thoughts: wow!
In summary, what was presented today were mighty fine words that can only ultimately be judged on delivery. I cannot fault them, for both the breadth and scale of ambition they contain.
So, thank you [@LizClements](https://twitter.com/LizClements?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [@BrumLeader](https://twitter.com/BrumLeader?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [@bhamconnected](https://twitter.com/bhamconnected?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [@joe4greentravel](https://twitter.com/joe4greentravel?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) [@adamtranter](https://twitter.com/adamtranter?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) and everyone else who has worked on this plan, it was everything I had hoped for, and more. I look forward to diving into the details, when released, and providing any assistance to improve them (if needed, obvs!).
### Our response to the "Six Big Moves" consultation
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-six-big-moves-consultation/
Last updated: 2023-04-28T09:59:16.000Z
Dear Transport for West Midlands
**Our response to the WMLTP5 “six big moves” consultation**
Better Streets for Birmingham supports the objectives and six ‘big moves’ within the West Midlands Local Transport Plan 5 (WMLTP5).
It is of existential importance that access to safe and sustainable travel is improved drastically and at pace. This will then allow for bus prioritisation and road space reallocation, creating a viable alternative to the car and the conditions for improved behaviour change.
As a city, Birmingham is overreliant on the use of private motor cars for short trips that could be undertaken by people walking, wheeling, cycling or scooting. We continue to see, even in recent decision-making, how deeply entrenched car-centred policies and attitudes are.
We recognise that some journeys have no alternative than the car, however, this would be countered by overall traffic reduction which would make necessary journeys by car faster. We support the approach that Adam Tranter promotes: using the right tool for the job.
With regards to the "big moves" public consultation which closes on 5 May 2023, we found everything to be of equal importance and could not rank them.
We look forward to scrutinising Birmingham’s area strategy in detail. We ask that you give enough time for area strategies to be properly scrutinised by stakeholders and residents.
Kind regards
Martin Price
Co-chair
Better Streets for Birmingham
### Opinion: Close the A38 tunnels
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/close-the-a38-tunnels/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:27.000Z
> [*Be Bold, Birmingham*](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/be-bold-birmingham/)*!* is a series of blogs where Better Streets for Birmingham member Paul Manzotti suggests some big changes he'd like to see in the city.
---
Does anything encapsulate the hold that the car has over our city more than the A38? From the gargantuan Gravelly Hill Interchange, 7 lanes of tarmac thunder towards the city centre, flyovers tower over the Children’s Hospital and the Mailbox, whilst it cuts off the Jewellery Quarter from the city centre, before ending up as the 8-lane monster that is Bristol Street.
The Queensway Tunnel. Copyright [Tim Ellis](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tim%5Fellis/150450232/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
It is a genuine blight on the whole city centre, and to what end? To provide those of us in South Birmingham with a route to the M6? When we could be using either the Middleway or the motorway ring road (the M42, M5 and M6) instead?
Has the time come to free our city from the congestion and pollution it brings?
## History of the route
It’s only relatively recently that these roads became part of the A38, instead originally constituting part of the infamous A4400, or Birmingham Inner Ring Road.
The A4400 is probably Herbert Manzoni’s most visible legacy to Birmingham, though sadly it’s almost universally acknowledged as one of the [great urban disasters](https://www.bdonline.co.uk/opinion/its-30-years-since-the-highbury-initiative-so-why-is-birmingham-still-making-the-same-mistakes/5093315.article?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). Swathes of Birmingham’s Victorian architecture were demolished for its construction, and it marked the coronation of the car as King of Birmingham.
Construction work on the Inner Ring Road (Steelhouse Lane section) [Copyright Birmingham Mail](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/changing-face-birminghams-roads-16491022?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
Eventually nicknamed the Concrete Collar, it made expanding the city centre impossible. It was also horrendous for pedestrians, with dark subways the only crossing mechanism.
Its detrimental effect on the city centre was acknowledged at the turn of this century by the demolition of the sections around Moor Street Station, removing about a third of the ring road.
## Unfinished business
With this good start having stalled in 2003, the soon-to-be-announced implementation of the [Birmingham Transport Plan](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/14861/birmingham%5Ftransport%5Fstrategy?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) is the perfect time for the council to announce that it will complete the job to free up the City Centre.
It fits in with the previously-announced proposal to adopt a [Ghent-style](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/20/how-a-belgian-port-city-inspired-birminghams-car-free-ambitions?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) zonal system, splitting the city centre into a number of non-permeable zones, where vehicles have to go out to the ring road to travel to other zones. Having the A38 continue to bulldoze its way through the city centre seems incongruous with that proposal.
This idea has unofficially [surfaced before](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/huge-plan-block-a38-queensway-21764332?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), with the original release of the Birmingham Transport Plan in 2021\. However, WMCA Mayor, Andy Street, shot it down saying that it would affect trade between the north and south of the city. I’d like to see the stats to back up his assertion, as it [sounds implausible](https://twitter.com/for%5Fbirmingham/status/1445360461877219328?t=719bc2FNZKYJlHtCJrAHCw&s=19&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). Regardless, we don't expect travelling from Essex to Berkshire to involve going through London, it's what the M25 was built for (hat tip to [@boots\_bike](https://twitter.com/boots%5Fbike/status/1648638186908794880?s=20&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) for the comparison).
The introduction of the [City Centre Clean Air Zone](https://www.brumbreathes.co.uk/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) provides a fantastic opportunity to investigate the usage of the road, due to the ANPR cameras that ring the zone. It should be possible to calculate how many vehicles use the A38 purely as a through-road. I’ve heard whispers that it is in the 65-70% region.
## Other cities have successfully made similar moves
Lest you think I’m suggesting anything special here, there are plenty of examples of other cities that have freed themselves from their concrete-derived car-dependency, amongst them:
- [Paris](https://www.fastcompany.com/3064157/when-paris-closed-a-major-road-to-cars-half-its-traffic-just-disappeared?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
- [Seoul](https://development.asia/case-study/revitalizing-city-reviving-stream?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
- [Utrecht](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/content/files/2026/08/motorway-removed-to-bring-back-original-water.html)
- [San Francisco](http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
This shows that it first requires the political will to make the change; roads are not immutable objects, immune to change.
## The benefits of closing the tunnels
Whilst this post is entitled “Close the Tunnels”, I am proposing the removal of the entire A38 inside the ring road, tunnels and all. “Close the Tunnels” is just a snappier phrase than “Close the A38 inside the ring road”.
So, what benefits would this bring?
### Reconnect the Jewellery Quarter to the City Centre
[](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/3912925628/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
Great Charles Street Queensway. Copyright [Elliott Brown](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/3912925628/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
One of the biggest benefits of this proposal is the reconnection of the Jewellery Quarter to the city centre. The 8-lane Great Charles Street Queensway is an impenetrable barrier between them. With its capacity requirements reduced to carrying local traffic only, two lanes could suffice. Space would be available for a tram line, possibly shared by buses, a protected cycle lane, with room left over for some greenery.
Breaking down this barrier would allow people to freely move between the areas, increasing walking and cycling, improving the entire environment.
### Demolish the Lancaster Circus Queensway flyover.
Lancaster Circus flyover. Copyright [Elliot Brown](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/6127417327/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
With no through-traffic, the monstrosity towering over Lancaster Circus and the Children’s Hospital would be redundant. Demolishing it would only improve the area. With no through-traffic to funnel onto the A38, the existing roads around Lancaster Circus could well be reduced in width, again freeing up space for a tram line, protected cycle lane, and greenery.
Imagine not having one of the biggest sources of air pollution running right past the Children’s Hospital.
### Demolish the Mailbox flyover and Holloway Circus
Suffolk Street flyover. Copyright [Stephen Piggot Photography](https://www.flickr.com/photos/arthur1/4359286852?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
Another flyover that dominates the surrounding area, its low height adding a claustrophobic feel to the pedestrian experience around the Mailbox. Demolition would improve the pedestrian experience walking to and from the Mailbox. The space could be repurposed for small hospitality concessions, further improving the area.
With reduced levels of traffic, Holloway Circus could be demolished, levelled off and turned into a traffic-lighted crossroads. There’s also the option of putting a modal filter at the bottom of Holloway Head, further reducing traffic levels.
With the main tunnel closed, a two-lane road would provide a bus route to and from Paradise Circus and Broad Street, with space for a tram line and protected cycle lane.
### Reclaim Bristol Street
Bristol Street. Copyright [Birmingham Mail](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/birmingham-street-names-secret-history-14605172?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) (taken by Graham Young)
Currently seven lanes of tarmac, the removal of through-traffic would allow a significant remodelling of Bristol Street. Carrying only traffic for New Street Station and The Mailbox, a two-lane road would suffice.
Installing modal filters on all junctions on the eastern side of the road would allow the A38 cycle lane to be extended up to Lancaster Circus, with an offshoot down Smallbrook Queensway. There would be space for the hospitality establishments to have pavement dining, as well as significant greenery.
Additionally, without the need for such long-lasting sequences for the traffic lights on the Middleway, it should be possible to reduce the ridiculously long delays that pedestrians and cyclists suffer when wanting to cross the Middleway.
### Build a tram line from Longbridge to Perry Barr
As mentioned previously, remodelling the A38 would provide space for a tram line to be built along Great Charles Street, Paradise Circus, Suffolk Street and Bristol Street. Eventually, this could be expanded to Perry Barr in one direction, and Longbridge in the other.
### Put the A38(M) on a lane diet, and build a boulevard
Whilst I suspect traffic will initially use the ring road to get to the A38(M), the inverse of [Induced Demand](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) should see traffic levels drop eventually. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for South- Birmingham-bound traffic to use the motorway. This should be monitored, as if there’s any possibility of reducing the number of lanes on this stretch of road, it should be taken. I can envisage a pretty tree-lined boulevard taking its place, which would be a massive improvement for the area.
# Be Bold, Birmingham!
Closing and remodelling the A38 inside the Middleway would transform a significant portion of the city. It’s precisely the bold step that the council seems to be wanting to make and would loudly proclaim that the days of this city’s car-dependency are coming to an end.
With the benefits it would provide, the question to ask is, why shouldn’t we do it?
[**Be Bold, Birmingham**](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/be-bold-birmingham/)**!**
---
### Our response to the City Centre & Snow Hill public realm improvements consultation
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-city-centre-snow-hill-public-realm-improvements-consultation/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:28.000Z
As ever with these schemes, there’s no detail as to why each design decision has been made, so the usual disclaimer applies that we’re sorry if there’s a good reason for each decision, but it’s not obvious from the design.
We cannot stress enough that we wish that all design proposals contained the reasoning behind each element of the scheme, along with possible alternatives and the reasons they were rejected. We believe that would make these consultations far smoother and more productive.
These are my thoughts on the current proposal to improve the area around Cathedral Square in the centre of town. The proposal, and all associated documents are [online here](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/ccshpublicrealm/?utm%5Fsource=Twitter&utm%5Fmedium=social&utm%5Fcampaign=Orlo).
## The good
We will start with what we consider to be the good parts of the proposal:
- Pedestrianising the loop of Temple Street, New Street and Lower Bennetts Hill is a fantastic move. Whilst there’s not a huge amount of traffic that uses it, restricting it to mostly deliveries allows this design to make the road the same level as the paving. This will make the area much friendlier to pedestrians.
- We absolutely love the paving that they are proposing to use, it will really improve the look of the area. Removing the lower road level from the section of New Street will make for a more pleasant pedestrian experience.
- The replacement of the horrendous and intrusive Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures with stylish bollards will make New Street a lot more pleasant, and is to be loudly celebrated.
- Removing parking spaces from Waterloo Street and Newhall Street is also to be applauded, though it’s not clear from the plans if they intend to remove all the parking spaces from those roads.
- Providing a dropped kerb on Stephenson Street to enable cycles, mobility scooters and wheelchairs easier access to New Street is also a welcome idea.
- Restricting when deliveries can be made to outside 11am-11pm will improve the pedestrian experience, whilst allowing an extra hour for morning deliveries to the current situation should be good for the businesses there.
## The less good
There are, however, aspects of the scheme that puzzle us. A couple of us did go to an in-person consultation for this scheme, and had a very enjoyable chat with the designers there.
- It is proposed that Upper Bennetts Hill and Newhall Street are to be made two-way, in order to allow an alternative route for delivery vehicles if a problem blocks Colmore Row. This seems like an excessive solution to an infrequent problem that could be dealt with by allowing delivery traffic to use those two roads in the event of a problem, possibly via manual traffic management.
- We did ask why Temple Row, Waterloo Street, and Upper Bennetts Hill were not being pedestrianised in this scheme. It was apparently to maintain delivery vehicle access. Given that there are already deliveries to the pedestrianised New Street, and this scheme includes pedestrianisation of more streets that require deliveries, we don’t agree with this argument. Pedestrianisation would free up space for hospitality venues to put tables and parklets out, which would improve the feel of the area, not to mention make it easier to take over Cathedral Square and the surrounding street for festivals.
- There is a 31-space private car park on Temple Street, and it is proposed that owners of spaces in it will be allowed access to it. We think there is a serious discussion to be had over whether these schemes should be designed to cater for something that actively goes against the current Council policy of reducing the amount of parking in the city centre.
- There is a pressing need for a city-wide discussion on how last-mile deliveries occur. A good example of why is that there are currently a couple of full HGV deliveries to the Tesco Express on New Street. Those are already roads that are completely unsuitable for HGV traffic, and we can only imagine that the lovely paving that is being proposed will either soon be damaged by this traffic, or else will have to be seriously reinforced, presumably at greater cost to the council.
- Also on the theme of deliveries, the many restaurants in that area require daily deliveries. We would ask whether there are potential alternatives to delivery vans having to park directly outside establishments? Temple Row is a much wider road, so could delivery vans be allowed to unload there, onto either electric cargo bikes or electric carts that then deliver directly to the restaurants?
## The alternative
We ask whether Temple Row, Waterloo Road, and the entirety of Bennetts Hill could be pedestrianised. That would leave Newhall Street as one-way, and installing either a contraflow cycling lane or a fully protected lane would allow it to be used as a cycling route to and from the Jewellery Quarter.
Additionally, with the focus on improving the permeability of the city centre for cyclists, Pinfold Street and Stephenson Street could also be pedestrianised, especially given the number of times that illegally parked cars hold up trams. Again, there’s no need for vehicular access to these roads, other than for deliveries.
## Summary
In summary, whilst there are many aspects of the proposal that are to be applauded, we feel that this scheme should be more ambitious. Whilst the general improvements are to be welcomed, we can’t help but wonder why the city must seemingly move forward in such small steps. Be Bold, Birmingham!
### We are looking for new committee members
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/better-streets-for-birmingham-is-looking-for-new-committee-members/
Last updated: 2023-03-31T10:52:49.000Z
### BS4B campaigns for changes to our travel and planning infrastructure to improve the sustainability, efficiency and safety of our streets. By reducing Birmingham’s car dependency, we will make it a more pleasant place to work, live and play.
Our committee is made up of 11 individuals who meet monthly via video conferencing to plan activities and approve motions. Membership of the committee is voluntary and requires a minimum attendance of six meetings per year. There are three spaces vacant.
Do you share our vision and have ideas, skills and experiences to help make it a reality?
**We’d love to hear from you!**
---
We strongly encourage applications from those who feel they are underrepresented in the sustainability and campaigning sectors because of their class, age, disability, gender identity or gender expression, race, ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other equality characteristic.
The majority of our current committee members are South Birmingham-based so we would particularly welcome applicants from other areas of our city.
**Get in touch with any queries or to express your interest in joining us:** [**hello@betterstreetsforbirmingham.org**](mailto:hello@betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
### Opinion: 6 ways to improve the Kings Heath LTN
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/opinion-6-ways-to-improve-the-scheme/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:29.000Z
Following on from his [opinion on the Kings Heath LTN](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/opinion-where-were-at-with-kings-heath-ltn/), Better Streets for Birmingham member Paul Manzotti suggests ways to maximise success.
### Intra-city active travel connectivity
LTNs are part of the cycling infrastructure network. They provide safe cycling environments in residential areas that do not have the space for protected bike lanes.
You can’t ask people to drive less and cycle more and not do anything to make that a more appealing option. Our roads are [horrendous to cycle on](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/number-birmingham-cyclists-being-killed-16420590?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) – and I say that as a very experienced cyclist. What chance is there of persuading people to try cycling for the first time in years, if not ever?
It is a major disappointment that no cycling infrastructure has been built to join the LTN to the rest of the city. Three years on it’s shocking that there aren’t even any plans to investigate this.
There should be a focus on both connecting Kings Heath to the City Centre and a local network centred on schools. A significant volume of traffic is generated by [parents driving their kids to school](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment%5Fdata/file/476635/travel-to-school.pdf?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). As most of the schools in Kings Heath have catchment areas of under a mile, this really is unnecessary.
## My vision for Kings Heath
This is a map showing how I think the current LTN cells should look, along with the local cycling network:
### Add a cycle lane to the High Street
A cycle lane on the High Streetwould not only enable pupils to cycle safely to Queensbridge School, but provide a safe cycling route from south Kings Heath to the new train station.
With this cycle lane in mind, the bollards on Station and Grange Roads need relocating nearer to the High Street, which would allow for installation of a fully protected cycle lane on that side of the High Street.. The original bollard on Bank would also need to be reinstated, and space provided for cars to to pass each other, as the blind corner makes it impossible to know if there is an oncoming vehicle.
A cycle lane on Vicarage Road would provide a safe cycling route to Camp Hill Schools, as would a proper protected lane on Cartland Road. Those two are complicated by the scale of resident pavement parking on those roads, but this is a problem that needs tackling.
### Move the bollard on Highbury Road
People are still using Grange > South > Balaclava > Silver > Highbury as a rat run soI suggest moving the bollard to the junction with Vicarage Road. This would also fit with the implementation of my proposed cycle lane on Vicarage Road, which would obviously be safer without vehicles crossing the lane.
### Modify the filters on York Road
I consider York Road to be a triumph but it could be improved further. The middle bollard is unnecessary, making it harder for delivery vehicles to go up the road. It needs removing and the concrete blocks on the High Street side should be replaced with a planter.
Additionally, allowing the hospitality businesses to instal permanent outdoor seating, perhaps [parklet-style](https://twitter.com/the%5Ftransit%5Fguy/status/1640088776188870657?t=4hbkxLtW6Kf5LaJaPHjcSQ&s=19&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), would improve the look of the road.
### Introduce parking permits
The forthcoming opening of the train station is going to require a parking permit scheme for the Station Road cell too. I believe we should bring in parking permits city-wide, as I don’t see why free on-street parking is allowed. Having paid parking permits would bring in much-needed money that could fund active travel infrastructure. Parking permits could also be used to slowly reduce car ownership, at first by allowing the planning department to force car-free developments in areas of the city well-served with alternative transport means.
### Fine tune traffic lights on Vicarage Road
More could be done to reduce rush-hour congestion. The introduction of Phase 2 of the Kings Heath LTN will remove the rat run of Vicarage Road to Institute Road, which should result in fewer motorists using that route. Less queuing to turn right into Institute Roads should improve traffic on the High Street too. Both these factors should reduce the traffic on Vicarage Road. However, Phase 2 will also allow traffic to turn right onto the High Street, which could counteract some of that reduction in traffic.
#### Traffic Light sequencing
Congestion on Vicarage Road coincides with congestion on the High Street. The current sequence of the traffic lights at that junction may be a contributing factor.
The current sequence is:
A435 traffic is allowed through the junction, then immediately Vicarage Road traffic is allowed onto the High Street. If the A435 traffic has backed up to the junction, because either the pedestrian lights near Institute Road are red, or traffic is queuing to turn into Institute Road, then very little traffic can make it from Vicarage Road onto the High Street.
Changing the sequence to the following would help matters:
In this scenario, A435 traffic can move through the junction and pedestrians can cross, allowing some time for the northbound traffic to move away from the junction, before then allowing Vicarage Road traffic onto the High Street. And then A435 southbound traffic is allowed through for a period,as currently happens. This gives time for the northbound traffic from Vicarage Road to move and not block the northbound A435 traffic.
This could increase the flow of traffic from Vicarage Road traffic onto the High Street, reducing congestion on Vicarage Road. In rush hour, it may be necessary to have a second period when cars can turn right from the southbound A435 onto Vicarage Road.
#### Improve the pedestrian crossing experience
In both the current situation and in my alternative sequence, all pedestrian crossing occurs in the same phase. It would be possible to have a [scramble crossing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian%5Fscramble?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), which allow diagonal crossing of the junction. This would save people having to cross twice to reach opposite corners.
By Sei F from Tokyo, Japan - Scramble from above, SHIBUYA SKY, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=97156045
#### Rethink the positioning of bus stops
Another cause of congestion on Vicarage Road is the location of the bus stops on opposite sides of the road by All Saints Square. There are at least five regular bus routes using those stops (11, 27, 35, 46, 76), and all it takes is one bus arriving from each direction at the same time to completely block the road. No vehicles can pass, causing traffic build up.
Additionally, buses use the High Street-bound bus stop as a waiting area, often with their engines running, for up to 15 minutes, adding yet more air pollution.
Are the High Street-bound stops needed? The 11, 27 and 76 all go southbound on the High Street, and also use the stops outside the old Pear Tree pub, which can only be about 30m from the Vicarage Road stops. The 35 and 46 go northbound, so could use the stops on the High Street side of All Saints Square. The stops on the other side of Vicarage Road could remain in use. The West Midlands Combined Authority [regulates bus stop locations](https://www.tfwm.org.uk/get-help/request-a-new-bus-shelter-or-stop-pole/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), through Transport for West Midlands.
#### Push for clean-tech buses
National Express West Midlands should be encouraged to roll out electric and hydrogen buses on these routes as a priority.
### Support car clubs
Most cars are parked [23 hours a day](https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/cars-parked-23-hours-a-day?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). The roll-out of shared car clubs has the potential to take a lot of cars off the road. I’m down to about 5,000 miles a year of driving now, and most of that is Sunday mornings taking my children to various sporting activities . I think I could get by with a shared car. The amount of money I’d save on owning a car means I could easily use more taxis and car rentals if needed, and still save money annually.
### Offer financial incentives
I’d like to see the council and West Midlands Combined Authority offer free monthly bus passes to allow people to trial commuting by bus. We know that buses are currently unreliable, but most of that is due to the buses getting stuck in traffic. We also know that post-lockdown traffic was still free-flowing at about 94% of normal levels (from conversations with Highways Department engineers), so we don’t need to shift many commuter journeys to other forms to see benefits for all commuters.
Once the train station opens, again I’d offer free monthly rail passes for it, to tempt people to try it.
We’ve seen from recent examples in [Spain ](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-medium-distance-trains-will-be-free-this-autumn-thanks-to-a-windfall-tax?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)and [Germany ](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/11/04/deutschlandticket-germany-launches-49-per-month-ticket-for-trains-buses-and-trams?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)that subsidised public transport massively increases usage.
And, if we ever join Kings Heath to the cycle network, offer free monthly passes to the West Midlands Bicycle Hire Scheme.
## Let’s aim high
The LTN has been an overall success – but there is room for improvement. I’d like to see the council do everything they can to make the scheme as successful as possible. The council needs this project to be a complete success, otherwise it will make it so much harder to roll similar schemes out across the whole city. We want this to work so well that other parts of the city demand the same for their neighbourhood.
The council deserve praise for persisting with the LTN in the face of some very vocal protests, but I would urge them to do everything they can to make the scheme the best it could be, and show that this city can be weaned off its car dependency – for good.
### Opinion: Where we’re at with Kings Heath LTN
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/opinion-where-were-at-with-kings-heath-ltn/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:29.000Z
> One BS4B member, Paul Manzotti, shares his take on the initial roll out of modal filters in Kings Heath, and a vision for where we need to go next as a city to build on their success…
## Disclaimer
I live on a road inside one of the LTN cells.
However, I would advocate for LTNs even if the council had installed one elsewhere first.
There are too many cars on our roads. [Vehicle pollution results in health issues and mortalities](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-06-pollution-cars-and-vans-costs-%C2%A36billion-year-health-damages?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), costing the NHS £150m alone in Birmingham in 2018, and congestion causes loss of economic productivity, which in 2019 this [cost the UK £6.9bn](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/94871/traffic-jams-costs-in-the-uk]?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org).
We can’t keep building new roads in this city as this increases traffic, through [induced demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced%5Fdemand?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), and road danger puts many off cycling here. Additionally, we are running out of places to park, with [pavement parking and anti-social parking](https://twitter.com/BadlyParkedB14?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) serious problems .
The status quo can’t continue. Not least because car ownership levels and miles driven in this city have grown continuously since the motor vehicle’s invention.
Politely asking people to drive less doesn’t work. Any plan to reduce our car dependency brings a measure of disruption. There isn’t a magical silver bullet for our problems. If you have one, please pipe up.
## The history of the LTN
During the first Covid-19 wave in 2020, one government response was to announce [Tranche 1 of an Active Travel Fund](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-active-travel-fund-local-transport-authority-allocations?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), part of a series of measures designed:
When the first wave of Covid hit in 2020, one of the government’s responses was to announce Tranche 1 of an [Active Travel Fund](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-active-travel-fund-local-transport-authority-allocations?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), as part of a series of measures designed:
> to make it easier for people to choose alternatives to public transport, a series of measures are being rolled out to encourage more people to cycle instead
>
> [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-announces-new-measures-to-keep-passengers-safe-now-and-level-up-for-the-future](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-announces-new-measures-to-keep-passengers-safe-now-and-level-up-for-the-future?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
This funding came with strict instructions to be spent quickly, so councils were allowed to introduce measures using Emergency Traffic Regulation Orders (ETRO), rather than Traffic Regulation Orders which mandate long consultations prior to works commencing. The consultation would be concurrent to the scheme, and changes could be made on the fly in response to feedback.
## The Initial design
This is how the modal filters were originally installed:
As soon as the planters went in on Grange Road and Bank Street, the modal filter was moved higher up Grange Road and removed entirely from Bank Street, following push-back from a local nursery, among others (from conversations with our local councillors).
An extra modal filter was installed on York Road, nearer the High Street, as the Hare & Hounds pointed out that people would just park there, making it impossible for bands to unload their equipment for gigs.
There were also alterations made to the timing of the traffic lights at the Vicarage Road/Howard Road/Grove Road junction to enable more vehicles through towards Stirchley.
## Current implementation
This is almost the current implementation; it’s just missing the middle modal filter on York Road:
### Effect on roads inside the LTN
Without question, roads inside the LTN are significantly quieter. Most were rat runs, and even at night, a regular stream of taxis used them as cut-throughs. Now, I have to check that the window is open at night, whereas before I’d only have to wait 30 seconds before I’d hear a car go past.
Traffic going in one direction would block traffic headed the other way, often resulting in shouting and aggressive threats. My car has dents in three out of its four corners from where it has been hit while parked on the street.
I no longer worry about my children walking to school, like I did before.
There is, unfortunately, still some rat running, with some people using Grange > South > Balaclava > Silver > Highbury as a rat run to avoid Avenue Road.
Overall, the area feels safer, and therefore nicer, than before. I can’t imagine going back.
### The effect on boundary roads
#### Avenue Road
Admittedly, the immediate period after implementation could have gone better! Severn Trent roadworks closed Shutlock Lane for about seven weeks. As this is a rat run, with traffic going up Dad’s Lane to get to Moseley and beyond, most of that traffic was funnelled up Dad’s Lane onto Avenue Road. With the previous rat run of Highbury Road unavailable, massive queues formed on Avenue Road. Once Shutlock Lane re-opened, the queues reduced significantly.
Anecdotally, traffic appears to have returned to pre-Covid levels, possibly lower. I haven’t seen traffic backed up to the railway bridge over Avenue Road as in those initial weeks.
#### Vicarage Road
Even in the most contentious section of the LTN, traffic levels have gradually improved. Lockdown may also have skewed people’s memories of what traffic was like on this road previously. There have always been periods when it was jammed up, normally when the High Street grinds to a halt. I do, however, think that more could be done to mitigate the situation for residents of that road – more on that later.
#### High Street
I’ve lived in Kings Heath since 2000, on roads off the High Street and I’ve always done my level best to avoid driving on it. It has always suffered from congestion. Indeed, [the below photo from the Birmingham Mail](https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/kings-heath-20-gorgeous-snaps-23917993?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) shows it snarled up in 1998 so, I struggle to believe it is more congested since the LTN.
#### York Road
This has been a game-changer. Before, it was a glorified car park. When I worked in Shirley, this was my route home, and I’d often get stuck at the entrance to the road, waiting for the queue of traffic trying to go the other way to clear. It was horrible.
It is now a lovely destination, with hospitality establishments taking full advantage of the available space. This is especially true on a warm summer’s day, when the tables outside each venue are rammed full of people enjoying the sun. It feels like you’re on holiday.
Some of the businesses on the road are adamant that the LTN is destroying them. I’d ask how they can discount the impact of Covid-19 on shopping habits? It’s accelerated a move to online retail, that was already underway, with figures showing a jump[ from 20% of all sales to around 33% by the end of 2020](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/impactofthecoronaviruscovid19pandemiconretailsalesin2020/2021-01-28?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). Unfortunately, online shopping is not a strong point of these businesses. You can’t buy anything online from the two biggest opponents to the scheme.
## A qualified success
The LTN has been an overall success – but there is room for improvement. In [the next post](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/opinion-6-ways-to-improve-the-scheme/), I will detail some suggestions to deliver that.
### Birmingham City Council spends ten years of maintenance cash to remove A47 pop-up lane
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/birmingham-city-council-spends-ten-years-of-maintenance-cash-to-remove-a47-pop-up-lane/
Last updated: 2023-03-15T13:13:00.000Z
## Why we made the Freedom of Information (FOI) request
It's important that the small amounts of money we receive for active travel are spent on lasting infrastructure to encourage people to cycle.
We know that lack of infrastructure - or too many cars - is a leading cause for not cycling.
We were told that the pop-up cycle lane cost too much to maintain, so we wanted to check how much exactly it did cost.
## What we asked in our request
- How much it cost to install the A47 Nechells Parkway pop-up cycle lane
- How much it cost to maintain it since installation
- How much it cost to remove
Birmingham City Council's reference code for this request is 51646077.
## What we found out
- It cost £256,000 to install
- It cost £15,133 to maintain since installation
- It cost £173,103 to remove
- It would cost the same to maintain the lane for 10 years, which could have kept it in place until a permanent scheme is built
## Our reaction
We [published an open letter about the lane's removal](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/open-letter-about-the-a47-pop-up-cycle-lane-removal/) earlier this year. The results of this FOI request causes us to double down on our disappointment for the lane's removal. The scheme could have stayed in place for a decade for the same cost of removing it.
We are relieved to hear that the West Midlands Cycling and Walking Commissioner, Adam Tranter, is working with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Councillor Liz Clements, and her officers to identify a new scheme to reinstate safe cycle access along this route.
It is important that our pop-up lanes are converted to permanent lanes. Removing Active Travel Fund schemes could damage our ability to win future funding.
Birmingham City Council should explore how cheaper pop-up lanes, through the use of wands, might achieve a faster rollout of a meaningful cycle network across the city, while longer-term permanent plans are drawn up and funded.
### Open Letter about the A47 pop-up cycle lane removal
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/open-letter-about-the-a47-pop-up-cycle-lane-removal/
Last updated: 2023-03-02T10:32:51.000Z
**Last week, we recently attended a very enjoyable LCWIP workshop to help shape our city’s future cycling network. It was fantastic to see the future network map develop.**
This week, we have been extremely disappointed to learn that the A47 pop-up cycle lane has been closed and is being demolished without any consultation.
In these cash-strapped times, when we are continually told that we do not have the finances to afford the active travel infrastructure this city so desperately needs, we question the use of our limited funding on removing existing infrastructure. It seems even more egregious, given the infrastructure served an area of relative deprivation, that we should remove it during a cost of living crisis.
Furthermore, to remove infrastructure funded from a previous Active Travel Fund (ATF) tranche seems remarkably short-sighted. We are concerned that this will negatively impact Birmingham’s schemes in future tranches, including ATF4\. The Council has created a record of delivering and subsequently dismantling ATF schemes, whereas other local authorities in the region have delivered and kept quality infrastructure.
We find it hard to understand why this decision has been taken now, in the run up to the publishing of the Birmingham Transport Plan delivery plan. It is also difficult to see how this decision delivers on the Route to Zero aspiration.
We know that we are not able to build all the active travel infrastructure we require in one go. We therefore have to slowly build the network out. This will result in sections that are initially underused, which was one of the reasons given for the dismantling. As the sections are expanded and joined to other parts of the network, as was seen during the trip to the continent with Adam Tranter, their usage will increase. Instead of removing, we ought to be iterating cycling infrastructure.
**We sincerely hope that this decision will be reversed. Failing that, we hope that the wide ranging disappointment will be remembered to ensure that we don’t lose more valuable safe cycling infrastructure again.**
### Open letter about the Footway Crossings Policy
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/open-letter-about-the-footway-crossings-policy/
Last updated: 2023-02-14T22:33:06.000Z
Dear Cllr Chaman Lal; Cllrs Barker, Brooks, Green, Huxtable and Perks; and relevant council officer
**Footway Crossings Policy**
This open letter is about the Footway Crossings Policy that was discussed on [18 January 2023 at the Sustainability and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee](https://birmingham.cmis.uk.com/Birmingham/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=Qbalktdufugki4Amv25Qbjc4mQi2sDEVdVEnnJQ%2bMvXxsDV1029Alw%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org).
Our campaign group champions the Birmingham Transport Plan. We recognise the members' and Council Officers’ work in implementing it. We balance celebration of the good with constructive criticism of Council decisions and policy that can be improved.
We note the Footway Crossings Policy will be presented to Cabinet in March. There is time to improve it. The needs of pedestrians and the importance of city’s grass verges :
- Entrance kerbs. Other UK cities have recognised the benefits of entrance kerbs for footway (and cycleway) crossings. These allow the pavement to stay level, instead of sloping. Pedestrians are negatively affected by the undulating pavements in Birmingham. Especially those that use wheelchairs or other mobility aids and people pushing pushchairs. We appreciate they are not suitable in all circumstances (for example at crossings at junctions marked with tactile paving). However, their benefit if implemented for all new driveway entrances will be significant. Our pavements should serve the needs of pedestrians first and foremost. Making a smoother crossing for cars to the detriment of pedestrians is wrong. Entrance kerbs are available for the UK market, for example from [this supplier](https://www.aggregate.com/products-and-services/commercial-landscaping/kerbs/dutch-kerb?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) that also provides an explanation of the benefits. (We have no connection with the supplier in question, other similar products may be available).
- Grass verges. The comment in the paper about grass verges states: *“In some areas residents live on narrow roads but have large grass verges outside of their properties. In such cases residents have expressed an interest to park on the pavement or verge as the individual properties are not large enough to construct a driveway but they do need somewhere to park and access their vehicles. In such areas the grass area is seen as an amenity and assessment would need to be carried out to ensure that parked vehicles did not intrude with the footway if a scheme was introduced.”* We think Birmingham City Council should not allow cars to park on grass verges, irrespective of whether they intrude the footway. Our city’s grass verges are an amenity for all and should be actively protected. The damage done to grass verges by cars is common and clearly degrades the appearance of our city. The damage also reduces their ability to handle rainwater, increasing risk of flooding. We champion [Birmingham Transport Plan’s](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20013/roads%5Ftravel%5Fand%5Fparking/2032/birmingham%5Ftransport%5Fplan?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) objective of managing demand through parking measures. There is an opportunity for your committee to ensure the Footway Crossings Policy does not undermine it.
We thank your committee, all Birmingham’s councillors and Council Officers for your work in improving our roads and public spaces for people walking, wheeling and cycling.
If you have any queries or comments about this letter or any other active travel or public transport matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
[Better Streets for Birmingham](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/about-us/)
### Open letter in support of Kings Heath and Moseley Places for People and the Birmingham Transport Plan. Regarding Cabinet meeting on 17 January 2023
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/open-letter-in-support-of-kings-heath-and-moseley-places-for-people-and-the-birmingham-transport-plan-regarding-cabinet-meeting-on-17-january-2023/
Last updated: 2023-01-13T16:12:11.000Z
Dear Cabinet members,
We are writing to urge you to back the bold transformative plans for Places for People in Moseley and Kings Heath at the cabinet meeting on 17 January 2023.
In the 50s and 60s Herbert Manzoni and others changed the very fabric of this city by prioritising private motorcars above all other forms of travel. Walking, cycling, public transport, and all other uses for our streets were sacrificed as cars were enabled to fill every main road and side road. Even short journeys in our city, that could be walked or cycled, are now driven by thousands of people every day. The negative effects on our air, the safety of our children, our carbon emissions, our high streets and the liveability of our shared spaces are plain. I firmly believe you have a once in a generation opportunity to reverse this damage.
The Birmingham Cycle Revolution has introduced some excellent cycle tracks; but these only have limited use if people can’t safely reach them by bike. Improved bus and train services are an important part of the puzzle; but these won’t fulfil their potential if our side roads and junctions make it dangerous to walk to bus stops and stations. The Places for People schemes are the keystones for a cleaner, healthier, safer and more prosperous city.
This vital change is hard. Luckily when we look at diverse places like Waltham Forest, Paris, Copenhagen and many others, we can see politicians having a hugely positive impact on citizens’ lives (and increasing their electoral popularity) when they bravely introduce these types of improvements. The Birmingham Transport Plan demonstrates that the current administration will achieve the same benefits under your bold leadership.
We thank you, the ward Councillors and the Council Officers from Birmingham Connected and across the other relevant departments, for making our city better now and in the future.
Yours faithfully
**Jim Smithson**
Committee member
**Better Streets for Birmingham**
### Celebrations and thanks!
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/celebrations-and-thanks/
Last updated: 2022-12-24T10:19:46.000Z
Better Streets for Birmingham is one year old! (ish)
In 2021 a group of people were lucky to meet one another. Some of us had campaigned for LTNs, others had set up Active Travel Fairs, some were members of community cycle clubs, others wanted to reduce air pollution, carbon emissions and increase road safety.
We all had shared interests in making our streets nicer and safer for people walking, wheeling, cycling, playing and enjoying. We decided to call our group Better Streets for Birmingham. By the beginning of 2022, Better Streets for Birmingham had a logo and this website (thanks Sush!) and had agreed on our [mission and vision](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/about-us/) (thanks Mat!). Some of us formed our Committee, we're listed [here](https://betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/our-structure/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), and we got to business.
In our first year our group has grown in size and scope. We have delivered or helped with some amazing projects and events:
- We worked with Sustrans and Push Bikes to and asked every main party candidate the Birmingham local elections: what they thought about walking, wheeling and cycling. Check out the results here: [Sustrans Birmingham Election Survey](https://data.sustrans.org.uk/birminghamelections/index.html?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org).
- We completed and published detailed responses to Birmingham City Council active travel consultations; all viewable here [Better Streets for Birmingham](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/how-to-deal-with-a-problem-like-russell-road/).
- We’ve engaged with and developed excellent positive relationships with Councillors, Council Officers, MPs, other volunteer groups and charities and Transport for West Midlands.
- One of our Committee members has designed the brilliant “Safer Street Maker” tool, allowing everyone to design safer streets. You can try it out here: [https://saferstreetmaker.org/](https://saferstreetmaker.org/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org).
- One of our members organises the amazing Kings Heath critical mass bike rides; brilliant family-friendly events that attract people from around the city (including Councillors).
- We have our first local group, the brilliant Better Streets for Harborne and Quinton. They had a busy stall at Harborne festival, they hold regular in person meetings, and have excellent links with their local Councillors, MP and Police.
- Our Harborne and Quinton group are running pedestrian wait and crossing times project; helping to make pedestrian crossings quicker and safer for pedestrians.
- Cargo bike training has been delivered by one of our Committee members, a professional cycling instructor, and we have secured additional training for other members from Birmingham City Council.
- We have done our first “free Christmas shopping delivery service by cargo bike” day; helping shoppers to enjoy car free Christmas shopping; a project we will be continuing in 2023 (and not just and Christmas!)
- We have grown to more than 80 members and provide a friendly and vibrant forum for constructive conversations about all things active travel.
We’ve had lots successes in our first full year.
As we come up to the Christmas and New Year festivities, the we thank all of our [friends](https://betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/our-friends/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) including our local and regional politicians, Council officers, other campaign groups and charities, and professionals working on active travel.
Most importantly, a huge thank you to our fantastic members. Your energy and creativity are incredibly valuable; we are all proud of the positive impacts we are creating.
Have a lovely Christmas and New Year. Here’s to a 2023 of even better streets for Birmingham.
Many thanks, from your Better Streets for Birmingham Committee.
### Our response to the moving traffic enforcement consultation
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-moving-traffic-enforcement-consultation/
Last updated: 2022-11-23T13:31:36.000Z
The [proposals](https://birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/mteconsultation?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) are for Birmingham City Council to enforce various traffic offences through automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. Once the Council has been successful in acquiring these powers, it will be able to consider and process further sites in batches on a local level. The Council will run consultations for proposed sites.
The types of traffic offences involved are ignoring no entry signs, yellow boxes, car free areas and routes, turn restrictions and breaching weight restrictions.
Drivers that commit these offences, for example by driving in pedestrianised areas and ‘school streets’, increase the risk of causing collisions that can injure and kill people. They also block bus and bike lanes, causing delays to bus users and risk injuring people cycling.
**We welcome and strongly support the proposals.**
We believe that increased enforcement of these offences will improve the sustainability, efficiency and safety of our streets. The proposals align closely with our group’s [mission statement and vision](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/about-us/).
We would like to thank Council officers for their valuable reply to our query about the criteria for new sites, how to propose them and the future consultation process.
## Future sites
In future tranches of applications, we would like to see the following types of site prioritised:
- tramways and bus lanes
- box junctions on poorly performing bus routes
- places for people schemes
- school streets
We are encouraging people supporting our position to include suggestions for specific future sites based on local knowledge.
## How you can support our response
You should [respond to the consultation](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/mteconsultation/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) and on question one on page three say that you support our response, as well as including a link to this page.
If you have suggestions for future sites, you can include them on question three of page three the survey.
---
### Harborne and Quinton pedestrian wait and crossing times
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/harborne-and-quinton-pedestrian-wait-and-crossing-times/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:33.000Z
**Tired of waiting forever, then rushing to get across? Join our campaign to update pedestrian wait and crossing times across Harborne and Quinton**
Everyone should be able to get from A to B in a safe, direct and timely manner. Be it on foot, mobility scooter, bike or in a vehicle.
In Harborne and Quinton, crossings leave active travel users out in the rain, favouring motorised through traffic. Crossing times are very short: the lights quickly flash and drivers edge across stop lines before you have crossed the road.
We want to make the existing infrastructure better for everyone. We are taking an inventory of Harborne and Quinton’s pedestrian crossings. This will help us to find out exactly which crossings need updating. We will compile a list for our local councillors to request changes. The best bit is it’s free and easy for the councillors to request!
**We need your help to collect information by 6 January 2023.**
We are collecting information about:
- Wait time from pressing the button to when the green man appears.
- Crossing time from when the green man appears until it starts flashing.
- Notes about the crossing, for example, if there is a bus stop, school or elderly residence nearby. This supports the case for shorter waiting and longer crossing times.
The survey looks like this:
We have recorded videos on:
- [An overview of our cam](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-yNGvPI8CwHJwd786KGHmMmV8-hPrT6/view?usp=share%5Flink&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)[paign](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-yNGvPI8CwHJwd786KGHmMmV8-hPrT6/view?usp=share%5Flink&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
- [An example of recording two crossings on Court Oak Road](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KO-5xprVSwX0-iGrerc5k8AaNwBjSBNs/view?usp=share%5Flink&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
---
[Record timings and leave comments for your local crossings](https://crossing.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
---
Thank you for making the streets in Harborne and Quinton safer for everyone.
---
### Our response to the A435 Alcester Road South Bus Priority Scheme
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-a435-alcester-road-south-bus-priority-scheme/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:34.000Z
**Better Streets for Birmingham is a volunteer community group that campaigns for changes to our travel and planning infrastructure to improve the sustainability, efficiency and safety of our streets. By identifying, supporting and advocating for changes to our environment that enable car-free journeys, we aim to make active travel and public transport the default options for trips around our city.**
#### The A435 Alcester Road South Bus Priority scheme stated aims are:
- “To combat increasing delays caused by congestion we need to make sure that public transport is constantly improving to make journeys quicker, easier and more reliable. This scheme is part of a wider package of measures being delivered across the West Midlands aimed at providing greater bus priority.
Buses have a huge part to play in helping achieve these visions. Transport for West Midlands, part of the West Midlands Combined Authority, and Birmingham City Council, are working together to improve the network in Birmingham, helping to make bus travel more attractive by reducing journey times and improving reliability. This scheme will enhance bus priority through the city centre, supporting the wider delivery of [cross-city bus routes](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.tfwm.org.uk/development/cross-city-bus/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1667388199328378%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0DLwivgicYq02NNN8XzdCb&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1667388199353103&usg=AOvVaw3AF%5FIEHwpNKHxd4mPXRxSk).” [https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/a435/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/a435/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1667388199328817%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0syGHTJFEGW3gb3w88Fgjp&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1667388199353283&usg=AOvVaw0MZRCyNglskDq0YDoc6nT0)
This scheme aligns with our groups’ vision and we strongly support bus priority, and therefore shorter bus journeys for bus users travelling between Druids Heath and Kings Heath.
It is an important part of the A435 public transport improvements, with an earlier consultation for similar improvements in Balsall Heath, and part of the Cross City bus routes plan that can be seen on the [Transport for West Midlands website](https://www.tfwm.org.uk/who-we-are/what-we-do/cross-city-bus-routes/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org):
A map of cross city bus routes in the West Midlands region
---
### Our response to the consultation is as follows:
#### New bus lanes on the A435 from Idmiston Croft to Millpool Gardens and from Sladepool Farm Road to Stot Fold Road
The proposed southbound bus lane from Sladepool Farm Road to Stot Fold Road will work in combination with the proposed northbound bus lane from Idmiston Croft to Millpool Gardens.
We welcome all pedestrian improvements, including that afforded by the removal of overhung vegetation. We request that mature trees and bushes are retained, unless doing so would significantly hinder pedestrians, in which case any mature plants should be replaced with plants that will grow to at least the same size when mature.
The Monday to Saturday 7am – 7pm timed bus lane restrictions appear reasonable. We are glad that this is not made more complicated with different timings for north and south routes; as public transport priority must be enjoyed by people taking non-commuting trips throughout the day such as shopping trips between Kings Heath and Druids Heath and access to Cocks Moors Woods Leisure Centre. Furthermore, in our experience, keeping the bus lane timings as simple as possible increases compliance. It is better to reduce the need for enforcement where possible.
#### Broad Lane right turn pockets
Regarding the right turn pockets into Broad Lane and the leisure centre, we support this design in these circumstances.
---
Excerpt of the consultation design drawing showing right turn pockets from the A435 into Broad Lane and Cocks Moors Woods Leisure Centre.
---
In normal circumstances we would question whether the provision of road space to facilitate the flow of private motor vehicle traffic is beneficial, given the proven effects of induced demand, and many other better purposes that road space can be used for (for example cycle lanes, road narrowing for traffic calming and pedestrian crossings). On this broad point we share some of the concerns that Steve McCabe MP raised in a recent video on his Facebook page, in which he talks to residents of Broad Lane about concerns including traffic speed and induced demand. We understand where Steve is coming from and are grateful that he is looking at issues around road danger in his constituency.
However; in this specific circumstance, we can see that there is a clear benefit afforded to public transport users by minimising delays caused to buses at this location. Even with the proposed lane widening, there appears to be insufficient width to provide bus lanes on both sides at this point. Therefore, it appears that right turn pockets at this junction will provide the best usage of road space to prevent buses being delayed by turning cars. We also note that there are no other elements of the scheme that would appear to induce private motor vehicle usage or speed. We take the view that this is a beneficial element for bus users.
As with all junction treatments, we strongly urge that the changes are combined with corner radius tightening and junction narrowing to slow the speed of motor vehicles turning into and out of the junctions (junctions being particularly dangerous parts of our roads) and to make it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross side roads. We believe that incorporating these improvements into all highways schemes wherever possible saves money overall and reduces the risk of injury and fatal crashes.
#### Bus Lane between Appian Close and Featherstone Road
The proposed northbound bus lane between Appian Close and Featherstone Road appears to extend the already successful bus lane leading northbound towards the city, up to the traffic lights with Howard Road. We agree that this will be beneficial for bus users and therefore support it.
The current and proposed bus lane is only 7:30am to 10am, applying only to morning rush hour and providing no priority to bus users outside those hours. We would suggest that the bus lane timing is kept under review, with consideration given to queue length monitoring at other times to ascertain if any delay is caused to buses outside the proposed hours of operation. This may also become apparent if bus companies report delays. This could provide information to inform a decision as to whether to extend the hours. In purely anecdotal experience the current bus lane does not appear to be regularly obstructed during the day, possibly due to drivers instinctively staying in the right-hand lane towards the Howard Road lights. However, given the proposed right turn restriction onto Wheelers Lane, a greater number of drivers may wait to turn right at the Howard Rd junction, potentially increasing the queue in the bus lane. This is hypothetical at the moment, with simple extension of the hours of the bus lane as a potential future mitigation if found to be necessary.
#### Turn restrictions reducing delays to buses and improving the side road junctions with Livingstone Road, Wheelers Lane and Tenbury Road
The plan proposes three restrictions on cars turning in to (but not out of) side roads:
1. Livingstone Road
2. Wheelers Lane
3. Featherstone Road (also affecting Tenbury Road given the shape of the Featherstone Road junction).
These side roads are all unclassified roads. The Department for Transport website explains the different uses that different classifications of road have:
- an A road will generally be among the widest, most direct roads in an area, and will be of the greatest significance to through traffic
- A B road will still be of significance to traffic (including through traffic), but less so than an A road
- a classified unnumbered road will be of lower significance and be of primarily local importance, but will perform a more important function than an unclassified road
- an unclassified road will generally have very low significance to traffic and be of only very local importance.
([https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1667388199334876%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3ktQ65wDiPzwqqGnSVEVC5&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1667388199354594&usg=AOvVaw2rRbhHr6aNcoiF1GGNjgXl))
Livingstone Road, the section of Wheelers Lane between the A435 and the roundabout with Howard and Featherstone Road are all unclassified roads and therefore ‘will generally have very low significance to traffic, and be of only very local importance’. In contrast, other local roads have different classifications and uses, such as A roads like the A435 Alcester Road, A4040 Howard Rd East and Wheelers Lane beyond the Howard Road roundabout; and unnumbered classified C roads Woodthorpe Road and Brandwood Road. ([https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/2855/list\_of\_classified\_roads\_in\_birmingham](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/2855/list%5Fof%5Fclassified%5Froads%5Fin%5Fbirmingham%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1667388199336263%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2wqoNWk8azV6tuKZrnuLRK&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1667388199354812&usg=AOvVaw0dIfKSOHP%5FWOYnv1i0B3Bz)).[\[e\]](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1tKoYRbdeVuQU5ve6%5FADXlm8wyNPOPov5/mobilebasic?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org#cmnt5)[\[f\]](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1tKoYRbdeVuQU5ve6%5FADXlm8wyNPOPov5/mobilebasic?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org#cmnt6)
Our overall opinion is these turn restrictions are very welcome as they remove current pockets where large areas of primary route road space are currently allocated solely to turning cars. These large areas of road are reallocated to provide faster and more prioritised bus services.
For example, the current pocket for right turns into **Livingstone Road** when viewed from the A435, north to south, looks like the photo below, and the new design is shown beneath it:
---
Photo of the A435 showing the right turn pocket in to the junction with Livingstone Road
---
Excerpt of the consultation design drawing showing the proposed one-way section where Livingstone Road meets the A435
---
We can see from the plan that the proposed design removes the lane for right turns into Livingstone Road, and allocates the space to the bus lane, providing priority for bus passengers and two lanes for vehicle traffic that won’t be blocked by cars waiting to turn right.
Similarly, The pockets that facilitates drivers to turn right into Wheelers Lane and Featherstone from the A435, viewed from South to North, can be seen in the following two photos and plan excerpt:
---
Photo of the A435 showing the right turn pocket in to the junction with Wheelers Lane
---
Photo of the A435 showing the right turn pocket in to the junction with Featherstone Road
---
Excerpt of the consultation design drawing showing the proposed one-way section where Featherstone Road meets the A435 with contraflow cycling access and the removal of the right turn into Wheelers Lane
---
In the same way as Livingstone Road further up the A435, we can see that removing the right turns means a large expanse of the road that is currently given over solely to assist drivers turning right, will be reallocated to a bus lane for the benefit of bus passengers.
### Our observations on these elements:
- We welcome and support the designs; they reallocate road space to bus passengers and align with the principles of the Birmingham Transport Plan ([https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20013/roads\_travel\_and\_parking/2032/birmingham\_transport\_plan](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20013/roads%5Ftravel%5Fand%5Fparking/2032/birmingham%5Ftransport%5Fplan?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) )
- We support the change the sections of Livingstone Road and Tenbury Road one-way, rather than just a signed no right turn, as one-way designs will increase drivers’ compliance with the design. We strongly suggest that the same one-way treatment be considered for Wheelers Lane, as the regular lack of compliance with no right turns on Addison Road and in Balsall Heath suggests this junction will see similar results.
- The restriction will make it safer and more convenient for pedestrians walking past the side road junctions due to the reduction in traffic movements to worry about, and especially at the Tenbury Road junction due to the extensive junction narrowing, and particularly positive element that will help pedestrians a lot at this current wide junction.
- The contraflow entrance for cycles at the Tenbury Road junction is very welcome; providing routes for cycling and other types of active travel is a positive design element. Providing contraflow cycling on one way roads is an element of the Moseley and Kings Heath Places for People proposals and providing a consistent design treatment will help normalise the idea that cycling as a local and everyday form of transport. We strongly suggest that the same contraflow treatment is provided at the Livingstone Road junction to maximise the positive effects.
- They create minimal impact on drivers’ routes given the close proximity of alternative classified roads in all cases. A potential alternative to the one-way and no right turn restrictions would be to install full modal filters (e.g., planters and a bollard) that prevent motor vehicle movements at the Livingstone Road, Tenbury Road and Wheelers Lane junctions. This would, hypothetically, make the side road junctions even safer for pedestrians, and remove the possibility of cars emerging from these junctions into queues potentially stopping across the bus lanes. However, we appreciate that full modal filters may be classed beyond the scope of the Cross City Bus Routes project and would potentially necessitate a more comprehensive consultation process as per the more active travel-focused Places for People projects being delivered by Birmingham City Council. If full modal filters are not possible at this stage, we note that the proposed design does not preclude them from being considered in the future, and there is potential for a future active travel scheme to complement this public transport scheme.
- We are concerned about the location of the right turn pocket into Tenbury Road for cyclists being next to the bus stop on the southbound side of the road. Cars often look to overtake stopped buses, so this strikes us as a potentially dangerous position for cyclists to be placed in. This could be mitigated if the bus stop was relocated if possible.
---
### Conclusion
**In conclusion, Better Streets for Birmingham strongly supports this plan, and the wider plans being delivered by Transport for West Midlands and Birmingham City Council to improve bus services in Birmingham.**
There are some areas where we think elements could be changed or improved, as laid out above. Nothing in this scheme appears to preclude further work on this corridor and adjoining side roads in the future, and we hope the public and local elected members supports these changes that will provide vital real benefits to bus users.
### Our response to the Moseley local centre consultation
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-moseley-local-centre-consultation/
Last updated: 2022-09-25T17:14:02.000Z
This is our response to the [Moseley local centre public consultation](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/moseleylocalcentre/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) that closes on 30 September 2022\. If you agree with our response, you can respond to the consultation with a link to this page.
Better Streets for Birmingham recognises the vital importance of east-west cycle routes from the Moseley and Kings Heath LTNs, expanding the local active travel connectivity to link up with the current radial routes of National Cycle Network Route 5 (the Rea Valley Route) and the A38 blue route. We see this scheme as an important, if relatively short, part of that future east/west route and wholly support Birmingham’s intention on this broader point.
In respect of the details of the scheme; we have written this consultation response with reference to the [Local Traffic Note 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design Guidance (LTN1/20)](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), structuring our comments around the 5 core design principles: Is it cohesive, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive?
## Cohesiveness
On the principle of cohesiveness, people cycling should be able to easily and safely join and navigate along different sections of the same route and between different routes in the network.
It is not easy to make clear comments on the connectivity due to the relative shortness of the route, and lack of available information on a strategic network (the Council’s published citywide network plan in the LCWIP does not assist in this, and we would support any Council plan to improve and update the LCWIP).
However; as noted above, for the purposes of this response we have assumed that this scheme is part of a future East/west continuous cycle route between the Moseley and Kings Heath (east side of the High St) LTNs, specifically the access point at Oxford Road which will hopefully be part of an LTN soon, all the way to the A38 blue route at the Priory Rd junction; via important destinations such as Moseley train station, Moseley Village, Chantry Rd historical LTN, Cannon Hill Park, the Rea Valley Route and Edgbaston Stadium. This scheme is only a small element of that route, however if fully completed it would be a strategic asset to a citywide cycling network.
On this assumption, the connection at the St Mary’s Row access point is poor and does not appear to comply with LTN1/20 due to the access to the cycle lane requiring people cycling to negotiate mixed traffic before waiting in a small central island to turn right against the flow of motor traffic heading East on St Mary’s Row (from both the main junction and slip road). Similar issues arise at exiting the cycle lane at the same point as it involves abruptly joining mixed motor traffic coming from both the main road and slip road.
This lack of safe access and egress will, in our view, feel unsafe for all but the most confident people cycling, having a significant negative impact on the connection at this point. This should be remedied with a high priority extension to the route to continue on the rest of St Mary’s Row, to potentially terminate at the new train station site with a safe LTN1/20 compliant junction to safely connect with the filtered Oxford Road. We are aware that Birmingham City Council is already aware of this issue and the required remedy, which is positive.
At the west end of the cycle lane where the access point is a section of shared space at the junction with Chantry Road, the connection is significantly better, with people cycling protected from motor traffic until a dropped kerb takes them onto (or from) Chantry Rd which is currently part of an LTN and therefore much quieter and safer for cycling.
We think it could still be improved; shared space is safe, but suboptimal for pedestrians and can cause an interruption to the journeys of people cycling. There appears to be sufficient space to continue the segregated cycle lane up to the junction of Chantry Road. This would be even better if the toucan crossing were replaced with a sparrow crossing; providing the greatest separation between, and therefore benefits to, pedestrians and people cycling. (What’s a sparrow crossing? We discuss the design and benefits of sparrow crossings under the comfort principle below.)
There is apparently a more fundamental cohesiveness issue that affects people cycling travelling south bound, away from town, on the A435 through Moseley that wish to continue straight on at the main crossroads or turn right down Salisbury Road: Once they have got on the cycle lane, there is no obvious way for them to avoid being channelled up the slip road and away from the direction they wish to travel.
We are not highways engineers, so only speak as lay-people, but potential remedies to this issue might include very clear signage (painted on the carriageway as well) at the commencement of the lane near the Co-op advising the cycle lane is only suitable for turning left whereas and straight on or turning right requires remaining in the motor vehicle carriage; or a design solution before the entrance of the slip road that allows people cycling to safely rejoin the carriageway at that point; or a design solution at the end of the slip road that allows people cycling to safely turn right at that point to head west bound on St Mary’s Row (though this option would present a directness penalty for people cycling).
There may be alternative remedies that we have not considered and we appreciate that bi-directional cycle lanes do intrinsically present issues of this nature; however we urge the design team resolves this issue with the minimum compromise for people cycling and pedestrians.
On a broader point, the LTNs in Moseley and Kings Heath need to be part of a much wider network of safe cycling routes to realise the full benefits. The east-west route from Oxford Road should be just the start.
## Directness
On the principle of directness and the need to take the shortest route possible by distance; this scheme directly follows the east/west route described above. It does not deviate from the shortest road alternative eastwards (from Alcester Rd and up the slip road), and by allowing contraflow on the slip road is actually more direct than the shortest road alternative westwards. On these terms, this is a very direct route by distance and is excellent on this principle.
On the question on directness of time, it is slightly harder to judge as we do not know what alternatives may have been considered. Clear positives include bypassing the main crossroads (a design element that likely results in shorter signal phases as people cycling do not have to share the same crossroads phases with cars and pedestrians) and the clear benefit of providing continuous cycle priority across the King Edward Road junction; both of these elements are likely to reduce delay and are welcomed.
There are questions regarding the potential wait to access the route by turning right across oncoming traffic on St Mary’s Row, with a strong potential for a lots of westbound motor traffic queuing for the lights being impossible to bypass, and eastbound traffic allowing few gaps to cross onto the cycle lane, creating delays. As mentioned earlier, the issues at this point of the scheme requires remedying with prompt extension up St Mary’s Row. We would also ask that the timing of the toucan crossing (or sparrow crossing if possible, see description below) for Chantry Road is optimised for pedestrian and cyclist priority, ideally with no wait between pressing the button and safe crossing.
## Safety
On the principle of safety; as noted above the access point on St Mary’s Row poses the greatest risk (this point presents a recurring theme of negative impacts). People cycling waiting in the middle of the road to turn right onto the cycle lane are not afforded a safe space to avoid high volumes of motor traffic from behind. Furthermore, having to turn across oncoming traffic at the unsignalised point exposes people cycling to the risks of being hit from both directions. Exiting the cycle lane at this point results in a likely significant speed differential between people cycling leaving the lane to head up St Mary’s Row and motor traffic heading in the same direction. This is potentially exacerbated by the exit point’s proximity to the slip road junction with drivers looking over their shoulder/in their wing mirror behind them to join the main road and potentially not seeing people cycling joining the road immediately ahead of them. This point clearly requires a remedy such as the priority extension of the cycle lane as discussed above.
There is a further safety issue presented by the lack of provision and likely confusion for people cycling on the A435 away from town that wish to continue straight on or turn right onto Salisbury Road, as detailed above under the cohesiveness principle. As noted, this issue should be resolved.
On the plus side of the safety principle; avoiding the main crossroads junction removes the need for a complex design requiring users to process large amounts of information and will make it much safer to travel east/west. The bus stop bypass and cycle priority across the Kind Edward Road junction appear safe and well designed.
Furthermore, the continuous footway at King Edwards Road and pavement widening design at the Woodbridge Road junction provides clear and very positive safety benefits for pedestrians by slowing and deprioritising motor vehicles at these points in line with the hierarchy of road users (whereby more dangerous road users such as drivers have a greater responsibility to not cause harm to more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians).
## Comfort
On the principle ofcomfort; it would be desirable to replace the short shared space section with a cycle lane, and the toucan crossing with a sparrow crossing to minimise risk of conflict with pedestrians for the benefit of both.
Toucan crossings are used quite often in Birmingham’s new cycle lanes; we are concerned that the shared-space element of toucan crossings make them less than ideal, especially in areas like central Moseley where we can expect a lot of pedestrian and cycle traffic.
We believe a Sparrow crossing; where there are parallel signal controlled crossings that separate people cycling from pedestrians would be a better solution for this crossing. You can see [a video about sparrow crossings from the Bee Network in Stockport](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iWqDwJrTD4&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), they are described LTN1/20 at paragraph 10.4.21\. It would be brilliant if Birmingham installed slightly more novel infrastructure such as this.
On a more general note on comfort; we believe wayfinding signage for people cycling and pedestrians across Birmingham is poor. Though it may fall out of scope for this specific consultation, this scheme would provide an excellent test bed for improved wayfinding signage to point people cycling to the filtered Chantry Road LTN and the onward connections to Cannon Hill Park, Edgbaston Stadium etc. to allow non-local people cycling to navigate without needing to refer to maps.
Moving on from the design principles, we are familiar with the concerns that active travel schemes can cause. LTN1/20 does not, unfortunately, discuss the best ways to deal with a common reluctance for change and general worry about unknown implications that schemes like this cause for some local members of the public and local business owners.
This scheme has clearly been designed with consideration given to the nature of Moseley Village with the compromise of the suspension of the cycle lane on the 12 days a year for the brilliant local farmer’s market, and only involves the removal of car parking spaces that were previously suspended during lockdown hence minimising fears of disruption. We do, however, ask that the suspension of the lane for the market still allows a shared-space safe route through for people cycling on those days, or a safe alternative route provided.
In conclusion, despite some concerns about a number of details, we support this scheme and urge Birmingham City Council to implement it and continue expanding the cycling network and pedestrian improvements across our city and quickly as possible.
### Our response to the Russell Road traffic calming proposal
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-russell-road-traffic-calming-proposal/
Last updated: 2026-08-20T08:07:03.000Z
Russell Road is a dangerous road despite having a 20mph speed limit. It is choked with traffic during rush hour and suffers from horrendous speeding. Drivers adhering to the speed limit are regularly tailgated and overtaken. Cycling on it results in a litany of illegally close passes. There is a clear and obvious need to do something about this and we welcome the Council’s focus on making Russell Road safer.
Many of the proposed changes will slow traffic and provide benefits for pedestrians which are big positives. However, we suggest that several of the design interventions are contrary to cycle infrastructure design guidance LTN 1/20 (referred to simply as ‘the design guidance’ in this response) and will actually result in cycling on Russell Road becoming even more dangerous than it already is. We submit this response with reference to Birmingham City Council’s transport plan that states:
> The vision for Birmingham’s transport is for a sustainable, green, inclusive, go-anywhere network. Safe and healthy environments will make active travel – walking and cycling – the first choice for people making short journeys
>
> Birmingham Transport Plan, p.23
Birmingham City Council has also declared a climate emergency. The Council’s website states:
> On 25 June 2019 the council’s Cabinet agreed to add a new priority to the [Council Plan](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/14799/council%5Fplan%5F2019%5Fupdate?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) which states that Birmingham will be "a city that takes a leading role in tackling climate change". This commitment will embed climate action in the council’s decision-making process to make sure that all service areas contribute to the R20 journey.
>
> [https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20015/environment/2026/climate\_emergency/3](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20015/environment/2026/climate%5Femergency/3?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)
One of the priorities in the Council Plan is:
> Priority 4: We will develop our transport infrastructure, keeping the city moving through walking, cycling and improved public transport.”
>
> Birmingham Council Plan 2018-2022, p.16
We believe that making Russell Road more dangerous to cycle on is clearly in direct conflict with the Council’s vision for better active travel provision in Birmingham; and its commitments to tackle the climate emergency.
## The proposals
The proposal has three options. Our comments on the three options are below.
## Option 1
We support the zebra crossing element of this proposal. The main element is proposed speed humps along the length of Russell Rd. We are concerned that the plans make no mention of making the speed humps suitable for cyclists. The design guidance states:
> Sinusoidal ramps have a smooth transition profile on both sides of the hump … They are more comfortable for cyclists and should normally be used where on-carriageway cycling is anticipated. Any difficulties in achieving the sinusoidal profile may be overcome by using preformed sections.
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.6.5, page 81
> A separate cycle bypass allows the hump to be avoided altogether (with 1.5m spacing between any
> kerbs). Where cyclists have no choice but to travel over humps, care should be taken to ensure that the
> transition from road to hump has no upstand
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.6.7, page 82
With reference to the design guidance, if speed humps are to be installed on Russell Road, we request they ideally have a bypass or, if the road width makes this impossible, at least have no upstand and a sinusoidal profile.
## Option 2
We support the zebra crossing element of this proposal. The main element is proposed speed cushions along the length of Russell Road, spaced at approximately 40m intervals. Design guidance states:
> Cushions are not a preferred form of traffic calming on cycle routes because they constrain the ability of cyclists to choose their preferred position in the carriageway and are particularly hazardous to riders of three wheeled cycles.
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.6.8, page 82
On this basis, we oppose the use of speed cushions on Russell Rd. Our objection is reinforced by our experience of existing speed cushions on Billesley Lane in Moseley, not far from Russell Rd, which suffers from regular speeding, dangerous driving and car crashes despite having speed cushions for years. Billesely Lane is earmarked for further expensive traffic calming as the speed cushions clearly don’t have the desired effect; it would be a reckless waste of public money if the same thing happened on Russell Road.
## Option 3
Option 3 proposes a selection of features, including speed humps or speed cushions as per options 1 and 2; with the addition of gateway features, kerb build-outs to reduce the carriageway width, raised tables, junction narrowing/tighter radii at side road junctions, surface treatments, additional zebra crossings and changes to the roundabout at the bottom of the hill. We strongly support the side road junction improvements. The design guidance states:
> Tight kerb radii at side roads will help to reinforce lower speeds for turning vehicles and offer a better crossing environment for pedestrians and should be used more widely. Side Road Entry Treatments (raised tables across the junction mouth) will also help. Research carried out in London found that such treatments have significant safety benefits, with a 51% reduction in cyclist collisions where they were installed.
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.6.10, page 82
We are currently calling for a rolling program of side road junction narrowing, to force vehicles to slow down significantly to turn into them. So, to see this proposal include narrowing of all three side roads off Russell Rd is to be applauded. The exclusion of the entrance to the Cannon Hill Park car park from this program of junction narrowing is, however, strange. From a cyclist’s perspective, however, including a raised table at each junction can make for an unpleasant riding experience, if not designed in adherence with the speed hump guidance summarised in our response to option 1.
We also support the gateway features, surface treatments, additional zebra crossings and changes to the roundabout.
There are elements of this option that we oppose, for the reasons laid out below.
As noted in respect of option 2, we oppose the use of speed cushions as they are dangerous for cyclists. We also request that any speed humps and raised tables ideally have a bypass or, if this is impossible, at least have no upstand and a sinusoidal profile.
In respect of the kerb build-outs to reduce the carriageway width, we support the traffic calming effects of these, but are of the view that the design of the build-outs in the proposal are dangerous for cyclists. The design guidance states:
> Chicanes and pinch-points should be designed in such a way that cyclists are neither squeezed nor intimidated by motor vehicles trying to overtake. The preferred option is to provide a bypass or alternatively sufficient lane width (more than 3.9m) so that the cyclist can remain in the secondary position and be overtaken safely. Where the lane or cycle bypass is bounded by fixed objects such as full height kerbs, the additional widths given in Table 5-3 should be provided.
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.2.9, page 77
It goes on to state:
> Cycle bypasses should be provided alongside horizontal measures such as chicanes or narrowings; the gap should be at least 1.5m wide to accommodate all types of cycle and to allow access by sweeping machinery. Where debris is likely to collect in the bypass at carriageway level, an alternative is to ramp up the cycle lane across the top of the buildout (see Figure 7.3). The bypass should be arranged so that cyclists re-entering the carriageway are protected and not placed in conflict with passing vehicles
>
> LTN 1/20, Section 7.6.4, page 81
The plan does not indicate the lane width at the kerb build-outs; however, given our knowledge of Russell Road as being relatively narrow; we assume the lane width will be less than 3.9m and therefore the potential hazard of vehicles trying to overtake cyclists must be addressed.
One method of addressing the hazard is ensuring the lane width is not greater than 3.2m to discourage close overtaking, however we are of the view that this is an entirely insufficient remedy given the volume of traffic on the road, and risks of oncoming motor vehicles not giving way to cyclists that have priority.
We therefore request that the design guidance is followed by providing compliant cycle bypasses (i.e a bypass designed so that cyclists re-entering the carriageway are protected and not placed in conflict with passing vehicles) alongside the build-outs. The current one-sided design of the kerb build-outs would only allow a bypass on one side; forcing cyclists in one direction to mix with motor vehicle traffic; especially dangerous with oncoming traffic that may not give way to cyclists. This could be resolved by adapting the design to have kerb build-outs on both sides; situating the narrowed motor vehicle lane in the middle of the road (similar in design to [this treatment in Southwark](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4650613,-0.0521836,3a,43.1y,49.54h,79.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s54hhBfnpp3rSEge2C3csfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org)) which would allow safe cycle bypasses on both sides.
On the design of the bypasses; if there is insufficient space for a 1.5m gap and, importantly, if the Council cannot guarantee it will be swept of debris, then we recommend it is ramped across the top of the buildout (using a sinusoidal profile ramp of course.)
## Conclusion
We are of the view that a version of Option 3 is the best of the options; however, the proposed speed cushions should be removed, all ramps, humps and raised tables should have no upstand and sinusoidal profiles, the kerb build-outs should be redesigned to remove the danger the current designs pose to cyclists, and all cycle bypasses must be free from debris either through guaranteed maintenance or ramping them over the buildouts.
## An alternative (or future) proposal
Better Streets for Birmingham supports the Council’s ‘Be Bold, Be Birmingham’ initiative; we suggest there are alternative approaches that more closely align with that spirit.
Russell Road is narrow; each lane is just about wide enough to fit a modern car, and the pavements are also quite narrow (hence why it is not a pleasant road to walk down). As such, we feel that the Council should seriously consider whether it is suited to be the major commuting route that it currently is.
One alternative, or future, solution to the traffic danger on Russell Road could be to use a modal filter to make it one-way. Doing this would allow enough room for a protected cycle lane along its length, providing a safe route for cyclists, Voi e-scooters and other future sustainable transport options. (Cycle lanes can be made wide enough to allow emergency service vehicles to use them, helping response times).
We appreciate that this would require a consideration of effects on the local network of side roads that may necessitate additional modal filters and possibly the development of a low traffic neighbourhood, including local resident engagement and consultation.
Whilst we accept that this is a bold proposal, we think that there would be clear and obvious benefits to providing a protected cycle lane and a network of safe side roads allowing active travel access to Cannon Hill Park. The Moseley and Kings Heath Places for People schemes would be closer to being linked to the active travel network connections provided by the Edgbaston Road cycle lane. Getting the cycling network closer to the centres of Moseley and Kings Heath will allow many more people to consider cycling to work, and this has the potential to also encourage a modal shift to sustainable forms of transport. We suggest that this could be the best long-term solution for residents and our city.
### Our email to councillors for July 2022's Transport Delivery Committee
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-email-to-councillors-for-julys-transport-delivery-committee/
Last updated: 2022-07-06T09:59:37.000Z
We sent this email to Birmingham councillors who sit on the [West Midlands Transport Delivery Committee (TDC)](https://governance.wmca.org.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=134&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). This is a West Midlands Combined Authority committee made up of councillors from across the region which receives reports on transport in the region.
Transport Delivery Committee's meeting agendas and documents are published on WMCA's website. [Here is the agenda for July 2022](https://governance.wmca.org.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=580&Ver=4&ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org).
---
Dear Councillors,
[Better Streets for Birmingham](https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/how-to-deal-with-a-problem-like-russell-road/) is a community group which campaigns for changes to our travel and planning infrastructure to improve the sustainability, efficiency and safety of our streets. We believe that through connecting Birmingham to reduce car dependency, we will make it a more pleasant place to work, live and play.
As representatives for Birmingham on the WMCA Transport Delivery Committee (TDC), please find enclosed concerns we have around agenda items for the meeting on 11 July 2022\. While we appreciate that TDC takes a regional political party approach, rather than as a constituent authority, we are apolitical.
We are concerned about the number of items not published in advance. Items 10 and 14 are verbal reports and are not restricted from the public. At time of publishing, item 16 is still listed as “To Follow”. This follows the worrying trend in the last committee year, which avoids public scrutiny through lack of advanced sight of reports. We would urge that all public items are published in good time rather than multiple document packs emerging.
**Item 9 - Forward plan**
In regards to the Walking & Cycling Monitoring Report, to be presented at September’s committee meeting, we feel it is important that specific requests are made for the contents of the report. Historically, these types of reports have been a fluffy round robin with attitudinal data and West Midlands Cycle Hire usage.
We would like to see:
- A line-by-line progress update on Active Travel Fund (ATF) and City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) schemes. These amount to hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of schemes to be delivered by 2027 and as soon as 2023\. It is important that the progress is publicly available and updated regularly. It is currently unclear how WMCA intends to publish updates and progress seems to have gone into a pan-local authority black hole. We would ideally like to see this included as part of the TDC Capital Programme Delivery Monitoring Report (item 12 of this meeting).
- The CRSTS programme timetable
- Cycle route counter and historical counter data, which would ideally also be publicly available (open) data published on the TfWM data portal
**Item 11 - Financial Monitoring Report**
We are concerned to see that the Cycle Hire scheme has overspent by £149,000 in the year to date due to lower than anticipated revenues. We would urge TfWM and Serco (the Cycle Hire scheme operator) to review usage data and reposition underused docks and suggest that NCN Route 5 might be a good revenue-generating route for repositioned docks.
**Item 12 - Capital Programme Delivery Monitoring Report**
We are concerned that the Cycle Hire scheme (bullet point three of section 3.1) is yet to find a sponsor as this restricts the growth of the scheme to capital-funded projects.
**Item 15 - Member Engagement Groups Update**
We would encourage you to join the ‘Safe & Sustainable Travel’ Member Engagement Group.
If you have questions about any of our concerns, please feel free to reach out and we’ll be happy to clarify.
We are hoping to email you prior to each TDC meeting. We hope you enjoy the summer period and look forward to getting in touch in early September.
Best wishes,
Better Streets for Birmingham Committee
### Our response to the Selly Oak A38 cycleway extension proposal
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-the-selly-oak-a38-extension-proposal/
Last updated: 2026-08-20T08:00:10.000Z
As we say in our bio, Better Streets for Birmingham aims to tackle our city's car dependency problem. The biggest key to breaking our culture of car dependency is to make it considerably safer and easier to cycle round the city, especially for those shorter journeys that we know a large percentage of are being made by car.
We firmly believe that we can only do that by being bold; if the choice is between creating a high-quality cycle lane and making driving less convenient, then the decision has to come down in favour of creating a high-quality cycle lane.
Sadly, we do not feel that the lanes and designs that have been produced so far have been bold enough, nor of a high enough quality.
The [proposed design](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/bristolrdenhancement/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) for the extension of the A38 protected cycleway along the Bristol Road through Selly Oak definitely could not be considered bold. Deference to cars appears to be baked into the design.
A bold design would free this vibrant shopping and entertainment centre from the through traffic that should instead be on its recently built bypass; one which would in turn benefit businesses, pedestrians, public transport users, and cyclists.
This is not that design.
Our main objections to this proposal:
- The cycle lane does not take the most direct route between the existing end of the A38 cycleway and the small sections by Battery Park. It should go the full length of the Bristol Road, whilst keeping the section on Grange Road as a direct route to the University (possibly with the addition of a modal filter on the entrance to Grange Road though).
- Following the example of the rest of the A38 cycleway and having shared paths with pedestrians, as well as making the cycleway give way to trees makes for an unpleasant experience for cyclists and pedestrians alike.
- The narrowing of the cycle lane in places appears to be required so as not to require the removal of on-street parking spaces; this strikes us as misplaced priorities.
The scheme does nothing to improve the Bristol Road as a destination for shoppers and hospitality visitors.
The scheme does nothing to improve the speed and reliability of the major bus routes on Bristol Road (the 61 & 63), which regularly suffers from delays due to the levels of on-street parking causing severe traffic congestion.
We strongly urge this design is reworked, to ensure we do not waste a crucial opportunity for significant improvements. We need a new bold vision proposed for the centre of Selly Oak, one that positively encourages and facilitates walking and cycling, one that enhances Bristol Road as a shopping and hospitality destination. This is especially important given the Council's declaration of a climate emergency.'
It is not bold enough.
A bold design would put a bus gate on the junction between the Bristol Road and the A38, close the exit of the Esso garage, remove all on-street parking, and put a protected cycle lane the full length of Selly Oak High Street.
A bold design would create an LTN on the south side of Bristol Road.
Together, these would massively reduce the traffic on Bristol Road, and create a safer, healthier, and more enjoyable environment for all.
We also recommend reading the [response to this proposal by Push Bikes](https://www.pushbikes.org.uk/blog/bournbrook-high-street-extension-a38-cycleway?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). Like them, we strongly urge you to respond to the consultation, even if it is just to say that you support the views of Better Streets for Birmingham and Push Bikes.
### Thoughts on the Priory and Edgbaston Road cycleway
URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/thoughts-on-the-priory-and-edgbaston-road-cycleway/
Last updated: 2026-08-04T10:33:35.000Z
On the recent 4-day Bank Holiday weekend, I planned to put together a long twitter thread on what problems I have with the A38 cycle lane, and how it can be improved.
I totally know how to have fun, amirite? ?
This somehow led to me looking through the [plans](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50082/transport%5Fimprovement%5Fschemes/1811/improvements%5Fto%5Fpershore%5Froad%5Fjunction/3?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) for the cycle lane the council are currently installing on Priory Road, and I had to drop everything and write about them instead. Because they are so amazingly good!
I'm kidding.
I will first say that it's incredibly hard to critique plans without having any of the reasoning behind the design decisions. It would be a great move if Birmingham City Council did publish the reasoning behind each design, along with why other options were not pursued.
I therefore apologise if any of this seems harsh, but I can only go on the information I have available to me.
One reason why I've long been critical of the A38 lane, to which I've often been told not to complain because it's better than nothing, is that I was concerned that if the issues with it weren't pointed out to the council, then we would likely see newer schemes repeat those mistakes. Looking at this scheme, this is clearly what has happened, hence feeling the need to put these thoughts down even though the work on this scheme is nearing completion.
So, let's critique the new design.
The stated aim of the project is:
> providing a cycleway connecting the A38 Bristol Road cycle route with the existing National Cycle Network Route 5 (NCN5) at Cannon Hill Park."
Which, no matter what my thoughts are on NCN 5 (tldr; not a fan), is an idea I can get behind. So far, so good. Now onto the designs themselves.
## Section 1: Outside Cannon Hill Park
Whilst this is slightly counterintuitive, shall we start at Cannon Hill Park (p.5 of the PDF)?
No, seriously, why doesn't the lane start at Cannon Hill Park? Instead of 20m away.
I know that there is a [proposed cycle lane](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/economy/moseley-cycle-route/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) from here to the Alcester Road in Moseley, but I don't understand why you wouldn't make the entrance to Cannon Hill Park the place where the two schemes join up. Especially as that scheme seems to currently be in limbo.
It instead starts with a shared path.
As you may know (if you follow me on Twitter), I do not believe that shared infrastructure is cycling infrastructure. It's unpleasant for both people on foot and on bike. It's basically lose/lose.
More importantly, LTN 1/20 seems to agree with me. If you don't know, LTN 1/20 is the [official design guide for cycling infrastructure](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org), which I have to say is a fantastic document, chock-full of great design principles for cycling infrastructure.
I would hope that every employee of every Highway department in the country would receive formal training on it.
Frankly, every councillor should at the very least read it.
On page 8 of it, in the section marked Core Design Principles, there is this example of bad design:
Firstly, the lane just ends, turning into a shared pathway again. Why?
If I had to guess (from what happens on the A38 cycle lane), it seems that whenever there's some form of pedestrian crossing on the road, the decision has been made to make the paving around it a shared route. I can't say that I agree with this as a design decision. I am perfectly happy with the idea that cyclists need to look out for pedestrians (as the recent update to the Highway Code made official), but not giving pedestrians any clue that it is a shared path is a mistake.
To be fair, the junction is being narrowed here (I'd missed that on my initial viewing of the plan, but Google Maps Streetview shows that they've been narrowing it).
To cross The Ashes, however, there is a Toucan Crossing. Whilst there is no indication of the proposed phasing of the traffic lights here, from the required vehicle movements I assume that the phasing will be along these lines:
- Green for cars on Edgbaston Road (both directions).
- Green for cyclists and pedestrians on Edgbaston Road.
- Green for cars turning into The Ashes from the Moseley-bound carriageway of Edgbaston Road.
- Green for cars coming out of The Ashes.
So, that's three out of four phases are red for the cycle lane, suggesting a lot of waiting time for cyclists. They could, of course, have extra green phases for cyclists and pedestrians, which would be better.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure what the best way of designing this junction is. I don't know if you could have a CPC here, with cycle lane traffic controlled on the same lights phases as the Edgbaston Road. This would mean that cars turning into The Ashes would be expected to give way to traffic on the cycle lane. The left lane on Edgbaston Road could again be for left turns only, to prevent rear shunts if a vehicle has to stop to allow cycles to pass.
Alternatively, and this is probably the better solution, the left lane on Edgbaston Road could again be for left turns only, and the lights phasing could be that this lane is red when going straight along the Edgbaston Road is green, allowing cyclists and pedestrians to cross The Ashes at that point. This lane could then be green when vehicles are allowed out of The Ashes.
So, whilst it's a complicated junction, it's not a great start to this section.
## Section 3b: Crossing Edgbaston Road
More shared pathway. And then the cycle lane crosses TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD!
I genuinely don't know why the lane is on one side of the road for half of it, and swaps for the other half. I presume that there's a good reason for this design decision, but I have no idea what that reason might be.
So, why is this a bad design? For starters, if we turn to our new friend, LTN 1/20, it is very specific about making cycling infrastructure as direct a route as possible:
![More LTN 1/20 guidance:
Cycle routes should be at least as direct - and preferably more direct - than those available for private motor vehicles" class="wp-image-261">
I think that it would be fair to say that making cyclists wait at traffic lights because the cycle lane swaps sides is not as direct as the road. I also assume that there's a high chance that a cyclist will have to wait for these lights and the ones crossing The Ashes.
As for reasons why this choice has been made, I'm struggling. There may be engineering reasons as to why the lane couldn't be extended on that side of the road. I suspect, however, that it might have been for cost reasons, as the central reservation and lights at the junction with Pershore Road would require moving, to accommodate a segregated cycle lane on the Edgbaston-bound carriageway.
Potentialy, swapping sides was chosen because the Edgbaston-bound side of Priory Road between Pershore Road and the A38 does have a single junction, whereas the Moseley-bound side doesn't. But as this junction is with Odell Place, a small residential area, I'd suggest that this could easily be managed with a CPC.
I'll be honest here; between the junction with The Ashes and having to cross the Edgbaston Road, I'd most likely be cycling on the road for this section, rather than be held up at the lights for a couple of minutes.
Section 4: Joining the A38 cycleway
We now reach the final part of the project, where it joins up with the A38 cycle lane: