Amanda Martin

I would add that I don't think the answer is to displace cyclists and pedestrians who already have the *** end of the network. Nothing will be gained until we start reallocating road space to other modes starting with the A49 which needs cycle lanes in both directions. The Highways Agency has a pot of money for cycling provision on the trunk road network but they don't publicise the fact. I think we should have some of it. We could run it as a pilot. I am completely confident that it would be a case of "Build it and they will come".

Actually this isn't a bad idea but conventional tram systems only work where there is a critical mass of passengers to support them. That said, back in the day, as a student, I read about something called the Parry People Mover. It's designed to carry fairly small numbers at low speeds right into and through shopping areas, providing the kind of access that enables people to leave the car at home for shopping trips. As pretty much every Continental city demonstrates on a daily basis, trams are attractive, efficient, support the local economy and add a buzz to town and city streets. We should certainly have incorporated something like this into the new city centre development - another missed opportunity through political myopia. We really have to grasp this nettle with something radical. Yesterday I needed to go to Whitecross. I would have cycled but Whitecross Road terrifies me so I drove. It took me nearly an hour and then half an hour to come home. This is not progress and we cannot tarmac our way out of the problem. http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/products.htm

What because I can't resist twenty kinds of focaccia or a TKMaxx identical to the one quarter of a mile closer that closed down on Thursday? Actually it's sadder than that. We went to take a look at the new road markings. We cycled right round but didn't manage to make it back to High town without being abused by an obese, scowling matron in a 4x4 when we dared to share the shared space. After she contemptuously gestured at me for having my wheel two inches over the edge of the pavement area my partner caught up with her and suggested she had more money than manners. Before descending into a torrent of abuse she managed to complain that I was "in [her] way". Seriously something needs to be done about the attitude of drivers in Hereford. I noticed that we were the only cyclists in sight and this isn't an accident. There's a pun in there somewhere. Interestingly the people we encountered in High Town weren't much better: it's as if cyclists are caught in some kind of pincer movement between rude, impatient drivers and rude, impatient pedestrians. Obviously we were wheeling our bikes by then and J stopped to let a man with a disability to cross in front of him. About five seconds in the woman behind him was tutting loudly. Is our society just populated by arseholes now?

It was like the zombie invasion when we went to investigate this morning - dead seedy.

* Dr Beeching even

I've just seen the comment about Widemarsh Street and agree with John: pedestrianisation is not shared space. Pedestrianisation schemes became all the rage in the aftermath of Colin Buchanan's 1963 report "Traffic in Towns" which complemented perfectly the untold damage keeping Dr Beaching busy over on the rail network. Buchanan's grand plan in the Sixties was to knock down our cities and rebuild them around the car, creating entirely segregated routes for pedestrians, cyclists and free flowing traffic with people in convertibles and dodgy scarves enjoying the open road on flyovers. Thank God, a number of folk had doubts about the wisdom of doing more damage than the Luftwaffe and the concept became a gimmicky, cut price, watered down ersatz version with every local authority in the country eager to put the wrecking ball into its beautiful old buildings to redevelop ancient centres into bleak wastelands of Brutalist concrete shopping centres, barrier bounded urban roads and multi storey car parks - feels familiar doesn't it? High Town was Hereford's Buchanan inspired demolition job of much of what made the heart of the city attractive and now history is repeating itself with this pisspoor shopping centre more reminiscent of Winson Green prison than a development appropriate for a historic, intimate cathedral city. The problem with pedestrianisation is that it doesn't solve traffic problems; it just redirects traffic to the periphery where it must be accommodated just the same with roads and carparks. Neither does it aid the businesses within the pedestrianised areas because walking distances can be significant and this is no joke when you're laden with shopping - at that point it becomes far easier to jump in the car that you've already had to jump into to get to drive into town, and just take it out of town where you can park next to the door. The answer is not to exclude cyclists and buses but to give them access to all shopping areas. With designated bus and cycle lanes everyone knows where they should be: buses give way to cyclists and pedestrians, cyclists give way to pedestrians; speed and traffic volume are not a problem, God's in his Heaven etc. BTW interesting difference in cultural attitudes to the bicycle bell. In Holland it is considered polite and in the interest of safety to sound a warning but over here people take offence. My bike has a very cool bell which I would like to use to warn people, strolling up the middle of the cycle path, that I am approaching but I hesitate since I feel this could result in my being wrestled to the ground and strangled with my own hi vis illuminated strip.

"You tell the people of Hereford that they can walk where they want and cross the road whenever they like and they will purposely walk out infront of cars because they believe they have the right of way. Likewise, cars will push forward as they feel that they have the right of way. You CAN'T tell everyone, cars and people, that they can do what they want." Biomech, to be honest I agree with you to some extent, particular since in our culture we've got an ingrained assumption that drivers are the only ones who matter. My experience (academic and having seen it all working in Europe) is that shared space works well in residential streets where traffic is slow moving and the onus is on drivers to stay out of the way of cyclists and pedestrians but even here there is a hierarchy: it just isn't the hierarchy we're used to in which drivers have priority and everyone else stays out of the way. In Dutch and German cities and towns there IS segregation and there IS a hierarchy of road users and with all due respect to Martin Cassini, who is not after all a transport planner by background, I think he has misunderstood the concept of shared space. Shared space is "shared" insofar as redesigned streets give pedestrians and cyclists the courage to share them but it's not supposed to be a free for all. That's not to say that the sharing of space in relation to "light off" schemes is any less effective; on the contrary it works very well but that's a different concept and doesn't benefit pedestrians and cyclists unless the road layout is re-engineered as at Poynton. Indeed, at the end of Martin's Portishead video, it's acknowledged that "further work" needs to be done to change cultural assumptions about who has priority - in other words the traffic was flowing better but peds and cyclists were still being blasted off the road. Based on my experience, in roads like Newmarket Street, Blueschool Street, Widemarsh Street and the A49 running from Asda to Newtown Road, there should be priority and that priority should be in favour of pedestrians and cyclists. This is the only way to encourage people out of cars. I don't think, I know, that walking and cycling are being suppressed by our dangerous, hostile road conditions and road space reallocation gives a clear signal that cyclists have every right to be on the road, with or without their trailer, just as much as four wheeled traffic. I know this works because I have seen it with my own eyes.

Yes that about sums it up. If only I could include the phrase "mutual twattism in my presentation on Wednesday

I think the time is coming when we need to think of taking back some of the street space we have handed over to traffic and give it to cyclists - one of the problems with cyclists not sticking to cycle paths is that there aren't really any cycle paths. i have to admit I cycle on the pavement myself because I would rather be prosecuted than dead. This morning I had an errand to run in Whitecross. I live in St James. I've cycled as a means of transport all my life but I finally bottled out and took the car rather than brave Eign Street and Whitecross Road. I' m sure I'm not alone and the evidence is the almost total absence of cyclists on Hereford's roads. You get what you pay for in transport planning. If you invest in cycling infrastructure you get cyclists; if you build roads and car parks you get traffic. This is the undeniable evidence from all over Europe.

Oh God the heart sinks. This is a really good idea that works brilliantly elsewhere but I just know they're going to f*ck it up which will mean that the concept loses all credibility. These schemes can only work if the effect is to release suppressed demand for walking and cycling of which there is always plenty. If you end up with the same amount of traffic it's just deckchair rearrangement and doomed so it really needs to be done with conviction. My personal view is that alongside the shared space scheme, we need the "Lights Out" project and one carriageway in each direction on the A49 from Asda to Newmarket Street reallocated to cyclists - sounds radical I know but it's the only way to deal with some of these local journeys that are congesting the network.

Good article. I have now done a Land Registry search - should have done this ages ago. The freehold is registered under Title No HE31002 and HC are still noted as freehold owners. HC granted an option to purchase to Stanhope back in November 2009. ESG Herefordshire Ltd is a party to that agreement but without seeing it I can't work out what the various obligations are. HC are still shown as registered proprietors so the option has not yet been exercised but, in the meantime, Stanhope has entered into a number of agreements to grant leases to various retailers including, depressingly, Nando's Chickenland -as if the degradation of the city isn't enough let's promote animal suffering and become obese as well. Anyway, these agreements for lease will complete when the builds are substantively completed and, I imagine, at the same time as Stanhope exercise their option, so whist the Council is contractually obliged to transfer the land it hasn't yet done so, unless the option has been exercised but Stanhope's title hasn't yet been registered but I doubt that. Worryingly I also note that the Old Market Inn was granted a ten year lease in September 2011. I suspect that it is excluded from the security of tenure provisions of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act and that when that lease expires it will be good bye Old Market Inn. Most unexpectedly of all, the Filed Plan, which broadly delineates the boundary of each registered title, indicates that, along with the old market site, most of Newmarket Street itself is included within title no HE31002 and could form part of the land to be transferred to Stanhope under the option agreement although the Authority would continue to own the metalled highway. I cannot tell without seeing the agreement and that has not been filed at the Land Registry. It would be helpful if a councillor could request copies of these documents. I think that it is legitimate for the public to know what is being sold off and for how much but I suspect they would cite "commercial confidentiality". Nevertheless councillors are entitled to see these documents. There is no reference to British Land or 250 year leases and I would be interested to know where this information has come from. There are other title numbers and documents referred to but I cannot obtain copies without paying further fees.

Colin this is the nub of it. The discussion shows how deeply ingrained the assumption is that it's all about enabling mums with buggies etc to stay out of the way. It isn't: it's about redesigning the roads so that they can go where they want at any point. I just watched the Old Market animation: even this naive misrepresentation with very few people and no moving traffic managed to make it look bleak, anonymous and unappealing and I'm not surprised the poster of the video disabled the comments! Biomech made a good point a while back about the attempt to superimpose something urban and inappropriately cutting edge on what is essentially a market town. He's right. When I'm coming up with interior design ideas for my clients, the first thing I advise is to go with the flow of the architectural style of the property. Don't try to put a Rococo mirror in a one bed Bovis home or a heritage cistern in a thirties bungalow and it's the same with street design. It strikes me again and again, as I look at the banal herringbone paving. ridiculous pretentious street furniture, acres of concrete and not a tree in sight that no-one is looking at this with a designer's eye or with any expertise in how to create visual appeal. There a stack of studies now confirming that beautiful areas do better economically and until we fill High Town with trees, cyclists, niche local businesses, cafes and attractive traditional shop fronts no-one with any spending power and choice will choose to come to Hereford. More than anything it's absolutely crucial that the local business community lets go of this notion that car parks are the answer to their problems. It doesn't work. Car parks generate traffic and traffic brings decay and decline. Seriously go to the Netherlands: thriving local businesses/ very few car parks/ fantastic public transport and cycle provision. It works there and it could work here and shared space is the first crucial step.

....and by the way, these are not my ideas. I know I keep banging on about the Netherlands but, you know, it works. Sometimes the most effective ideas are not the obvious ones.

Afraid I can't subscribe to this particular idea. Footbridges and subways are one of the hallmarks of Sixties and Seventies transport planning. They sought to make pedestrians "safe" through segregation but all they did was ghettoise them and further entrench the view that the public realm is for traffic while other road users must somehow stay out of the way. It's a superficially attractive solution but they become nothing but corridors of movement between the car parks and the shops and over time merely add to the sense of disunity on the streets. Like other street ironmongery they also tend to become unattractive, shabby and alienating in a very short space of time. I have a particular problem with subways. Apart from the implied assumption that it's for pedestrians to suffer inconvenience in getting from A to B, I find them threatening and hostile and aesthetically they have no place in a city like Hereford that depends on its attractiveness for survival. I personally won't use the Victoria Street subway after dark and would rather run the gauntlet of traffic at grade. Maybe it's no coincidence that, in spite of the subways, Victoria Street, Edgar Street and Newmarket Street had more deaths and serious injuries over the last five years than anywhere else in the city. It's not the easy solution but, as ever, I'm afraid the answer is to reduce the amount of traffic and reintegrate road users with shared space, good public transport and cycle provision.

Erratum : "Reunited"

Because you didn't come to the Tree Huggers' Ball. I met Bobby too

OK just for the record, here's one I posted earlier: The thing I like about Hereford Reunited is the way it immediately conveys the spirit of what we're about: cooperation and courtesy on the road, eliminating the severance that destroys community, meeting together on the street, reviving social cohesion, restoring unity etc. The overall objectives are about more than lights out or shared space - these are merely the means by which we restore quality of life and vitality. See what I mean? I'm personally happy with Hereford Reunited but if we come up with something else, I feel it must have that "message in lights" [sic] that conveys our overall aim rather than the objectives we have to achieve it. " John P came up with the idea of: "Hereford United - no lights equal rights" which I personally think is the best of both worlds but, as I said, I'm happy to go with the majority.

Good to be here Dippy and also to meet you the other night - love your HT posts.

A rash promise Bobby :-)