[hawkinspeter]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/through-traffic-banned-parts-bristol-8295492

This should be introduced towards the end of this year as an experimental trial – I wish it could happen sooner as it covers where I live. We had questionnaires about it during lockdown, though I think that was just about making Beaufort Rd (by the cemetery) one way to motorised traffic.

Topic

[brooksby]

chrisonabike wrote:

There’s an interesting political thing.  In my anecdata “right-wing” parties (e.g. “protect locals, cut taxes / deregulate to increase ‘opportunities’, keep ‘our way of life’ etc.”) seem to be popular with immigrants more often than I would naively expect.

They want to pick on The Others in general, rather than a specific group.  Immigrants can hate Others just as much as Nigel Farage does.

[chrisonabike]

There’s an interesting

There’s an interesting political thing.  In my anecdata “right-wing” parties (e.g. “protect locals, cut taxes / deregulate to increase ‘opportunities’, keep ‘our way of life’ etc.”) seem to be popular with immigrants more often than I would naively expect.

Perhaps people who immigrate like the country “how it was”, and to some extent want to “fit in” to that model?  Maybe they also feel they’ve sacrificed and put the hard work in and it should come back to them, not someone fresh off the boat and looking helpless?  (“Pulling up the ladder behind you”).

And perhaps people already had that particular emotional reasoning style when they immigrated?

The US is a nation of immigrants in a sense, and they’re not generally considered “socialist” (albeit that country has ended up being rather polarised).

[Bmblbzzz]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The Anti-EBLN group have now approached ACORN for support. It’s way out of ACORN’s usual field (housing, but they have also acted on eg public toilets) but the argument is that the council are not talking to the residents, so they want help in an area ACORN are proven good at (getting the council to listen). Also, Reform (and the non-parliamentary further right) are trying to use this issue to gain a foothold. It’s not certain that ACORN will adopt the issue; it’s causing rifts. And of course there’s a large overlap in membership between ACORN and Greens, including some councillors (I’m not sure about the councillors for the relevant ward though).

I’m surprised that Reform would get any traction – aren’t they mainly racist (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c10l5qd8p60o), which wouldn’t fit well with East Bristol’s varied demographics.

Ultimately, the EBLN is a 6-month trial, so I think it needs to be less politically motivated and instead needs to focus on the aims – reduce traffic, congestion and pollution whilst promoting active travel. It may not be a good fit for Avonvale Rd, but currently that’s not even in the trial, so we can’t evaluate it and have to rely on who’s shouting loudest.

I don’t know what traction Reform are getting, but I hear they’re trying. I agree it doesn’t seem the likeliest district for them. 

I also agree the trial should be allowed to go ahead, then let’s see what effect it has. And I’m suspiscious of the motives of the people behind the opposition to it, however well intentioned the individuals affected are.

[hawkinspeter]

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The Anti-EBLN group have now approached ACORN for support. It’s way out of ACORN’s usual field (housing, but they have also acted on eg public toilets) but the argument is that the council are not talking to the residents, so they want help in an area ACORN are proven good at (getting the council to listen). Also, Reform (and the non-parliamentary further right) are trying to use this issue to gain a foothold. It’s not certain that ACORN will adopt the issue; it’s causing rifts. And of course there’s a large overlap in membership between ACORN and Greens, including some councillors (I’m not sure about the councillors for the relevant ward though).

I’m surprised that Reform would get any traction – aren’t they mainly racist (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c10l5qd8p60o), which wouldn’t fit well with East Bristol’s varied demographics.

Ultimately, the EBLN is a 6-month trial, so I think it needs to be less politically motivated and instead needs to focus on the aims – reduce traffic, congestion and pollution whilst promoting active travel. It may not be a good fit for Avonvale Rd, but currently that’s not even in the trial, so we can’t evaluate it and have to rely on who’s shouting loudest.

[chrisonabike]

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The people who make money from selling cars means not just those selling cars or making them or servicing them, but more importantly the financial services industry. (I’m sure that’s why you used the phrase you did, but it probably bears pointing out more widely.) So that’s basically the government (of any party).

Yup.  That’s what any “change” is up against.  Motoring reduction and active travel improvements seem like an open goal – just in terms of economics, never mind the rest!  But there are immense forces pushing back.

Agree that it’s not just the motor trade, or fuel suppliers, or transport companies.  It’s many others: financial services, those responsible for creating or maintaining the built environment … in fact just businesses in general which rely on motor transport.

Businesses often expect staff to drive around.  Possibly in a suit or uniform – you can’t do that on a bike!  And many also rely on vehicles as mobile offices e.g. tradespeople, some in the care sector etc.

Because we can – companies are going to do what allows them to get more business / saves them money!  Do employees have vehicles?  That’s a resource.

[Bmblbzzz]

The Anti-EBLN group have now

The Anti-EBLN group have now approached ACORN for support. It’s way out of ACORN’s usual field (housing, but they have also acted on eg public toilets) but the argument is that the council are not talking to the residents, so they want help in an area ACORN are proven good at (getting the council to listen). Also, Reform (and the non-parliamentary further right) are trying to use this issue to gain a foothold. It’s not certain that ACORN will adopt the issue; it’s causing rifts. And of course there’s a large overlap in membership between ACORN and Greens, including some councillors (I’m not sure about the councillors for the relevant ward though).

[Bmblbzzz]

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

That’s not a bad idea … only in the UK I think it’s far more important that we concentrate on public transport being far more extensive and reliable. Public transport isn’t extensive because “lack of demand” because people who can, often drive. It’s not reliable in part because buses get stuck in traffic, because people drive. Most people who drive could afford the bus. But the buses don’t go where they want, when they want or simply can’t be depended on. (Admittedly with our decision to keep subsidising private motoring it may be that in terms of just fuel cost vs. bus fare it’s cheaper to drive!)

The way I think of it is that by having free/low-cost public transport (I’d also include trains by the way), we’d be encouraging teens/young adults to be using it far more often and get into the habit of not always driving. However, that’s not going to be popular with people that make money from selling cars etc.

The people who make money from selling cars means not just those selling cars or making them or servicing them, but more importantly the financial services industry. (I’m sure that’s why you used the phrase you did, but it probably bears pointing out more widely.) So that’s basically the government (of any party).

[chrisonabike]

Which is great – but you can
Which is great – but you can only take a bus which exists eg. is going somewhere near where you want to go, when you want to go.

For older folks buses can be great eg. when you’ve got the time to work around the bus. School and office- hours commuting can work more easily also. As a “alternative to driving” in general we have a LOT more work to do with public transport, seeing the vast sums of money we’ve effectively put (or incentivised developers to put) into private motoring.

The good news is that other countries have demonstrated both the beneficial synergy that can be exploited between public transport and active travel (cycling) AND how “letting it rip” with mass motoring reduces driving speeds to that of public transport – see Downs-Thomson paradox.

[slc]

I would be keen to see in 6
I would be keen to see in 6 months how widely each low income qualified option is taken up. I am guessing the bus gate exemptions will be popular and might even be the item that changes a few minds, even if that does work against the scheme ambition.

I have seen free buses in the mountain resorts in Colorado, of all places. Tourists payed a tax bill on various purchases and restaurants, hotels etc, which payed for a bus service which was well used by locals (and me). I was amazed because it was both free and well run.

[hawkinspeter]

Bungle_52 wrote:

4.6%  increase in rail fares today. Fuel duty freeze maintained.

I wonder why we seem to have so many issues with congestion and angry drivers in this country? If only there were examples of other countries that had found ways to promote active travel and drastically reduce car use and pollution?

[Bungle_52]

chrisonabike wrote:

(also give older people options not to drive)

If I’m not cycling my bus pass has meant that I very very rarely drive these days.

[Bungle_52]

4.6%  increase in rail fares

4.6%  increase in rail fares today. Fuel duty freeze maintained.

[chrisonabike]

A good point (also give older
A good point (also give older people options not to drive) – but I remember the frustrations of absent public transport as a kid. And we barely knew what we were missing (due to slightly fewer parents offering unlimited taxi service – or is this “we didn’t have phone back in my day!” ?)

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

That’s not a bad idea … only in the UK I think it’s far more important that we concentrate on public transport being far more extensive and reliable. Public transport isn’t extensive because “lack of demand” because people who can, often drive. It’s not reliable in part because buses get stuck in traffic, because people drive. Most people who drive could afford the bus. But the buses don’t go where they want, when they want or simply can’t be depended on. (Admittedly with our decision to keep subsidising private motoring it may be that in terms of just fuel cost vs. bus fare it’s cheaper to drive!)

The way I think of it is that by having free/low-cost public transport (I’d also include trains by the way), we’d be encouraging teens/young adults to be using it far more often and get into the habit of not always driving. However, that’s not going to be popular with people that make money from selling cars etc.

[chrisonabike]

That’s not a bad idea …
That’s not a bad idea … only in the UK I think it’s far more important that we concentrate on public transport being far more extensive and reliable.

Public transport isn’t extensive because “lack of demand” because people who can, often drive. It’s not reliable in part because buses get stuck in traffic, because people drive.

Most people who drive could afford the bus. But the buses don’t go where they want, when they want or simply can’t be depended on. (Admittedly with our decision to keep subsidising private motoring it may be that in terms of just fuel cost vs. bus fare it’s cheaper to drive!)

[Author]

Replies