Bristol is the most active city in the UK, and the 8th most active in the world

earth wrote:

What changes have been made? I don't see many. A lot of people cycle but no more than in Cambridge and that has been a big cycling city for decades.

I think it's mainly been small things, such as fixing botched crossings like the south end of Welsh Back, with a few high-profile stunts like closing parts of the city to motor vehicles on Sundays. Festival Way might be the biggest thing to open during the mayor's time, but that's a bit compromised by previous administrations and nasty neighbouring North Somerset.

More or less the general situation, almost everything that has happened under the Supreme Mayor, for example 20 mph zones, was started under previous administrations. They can also take responsibility for the Cycling City status, although apart from a lot of very useful bike stands most Bristol cyclists cannot work out where the 12, or 22 million, for that actually went.

As for Sustrans being joint author of a report claiming that Bristol is doing well, the April and March 2015 City Council payment lists (1) show payments by the Council to Sustains, presumably neither the first or the last, so I am sure Sustrans are delighted to say nice things about Bristol.

(1) http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/expenditure-over-%C...

Some of the payments are described as external consultancy, so Sustrans must be to blame for the largely irrelevant cycle facilities in Bristol.

As for the 'first democratically elected mayor' claim, this is just the standard propaganda from directly elected mayor proponents, who seem to think we do not understand how representative democracy used to work. In fact he got the votes of 13 % of the electorate, just beating the other second stage candidate on 12 %, on one of the lowest turnouts in a council election so far. The same goes for the referendum in which Bristol supposedly 'chose' to use the directly elected mayor system. More a fit of absence of mind than a choice.

wjhall wrote:

(1) http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/expenditure-over-%C...

Some of the payments are described as external consultancy, so Sustrans must be to blame for the largely irrelevant cycle facilities in Bristol.

Isn't that rather a leap of logic? Surely it depends whether the consultancy was anything to do with cycle facilities? It could have been anything of tons of things - helping to produce some sustainable transport tourism leaflets, perhaps?

I am still laughing at that comment. keep looking at the picture!

crikey wrote:

Look at his f**king red trousers!

What? Too tight?

I fear you could be right but I don't think it'll be the populist cross-eyed neaderfascist you fear (you've been reading too much of the Daily Fail owned local rag). The Greens are becoming stronger and Bristol has always been a Labour voting city so either of those parties could have it.