[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

[Bmblbzzz]

chrisonabike wrote:

Look how permeable this area is to motor traffic (even with lots of fairly “narrow streets”)!

And the entry from the massive busy urban motorway onto Mina road is nuts!  Talk about a hopeful “drop anchors” (there’s also a really skinny cycle path emerging from the left here too).

Love the mina/maja pun!

[chrisonabike]

That sounds a good summary. 

That sounds a good summary.  Of course, they may find “simple interventions” don’t do what they think.  And if “nobody messes around with their streets” (e.g. council change nothing) things won’t necessarily remain “how they always were” anyway.

However “what is, is” and people generally just accept the “unplanned” inconvenience, noise, road death etc…

Lots of people don’t see alternatives to mass driving – even if they don’t drive themselves.  And usually they’re entirely correct, for the life they have built around mass motoring.  Change would indeed mean … change.

[slc]

The protesters say there was

The protesters say there was never a traffic problem on most of these roads  and that the scheme so far has created only problems, including heavier traffic on some roads – the latter is to date true. They agree that Bristol traffic is slow, and think this scheme means they need to drive further through more of it. They do agree that two roads are problematic. They believe that simple interventions (zebra crossings, higher kerbs, double yellow lines) would solve the problems that they recognise. So their case is internally consistent, while they think that there is no alternative to driving, and no strong need to find one.

[chrisonabike]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

It’s proper kicking off!

Wow!  I find it hard to understand sometimes – but I guess I’m woke now.

Presumably it’s “you’ve made something worse – why?”  And “I can’t drive in all directions as before, which means that I’ll need to take a different route sometimes.  That is … intolerable”.

Presumably they see this as e.g. if a journey takes 10+ minutes longer this will “ruin their life” e.g. they’ll need to re-organise taking their kids places, getting to work, events they attend, shopping?  For a bit … but isn’t Bristol traffic already so bad that it might be quicker to walk?  And prone to unpredictable delays?

I guess if you rarely walk or cycle then “distance” is really however long it takes to drive.  And the terrible thing is in cities we’ve been sold a pup – driving is nothing like the adverts.

But on the face of it the protests sound like: “Save our traffic sewers!  What do we want?  Unsafe streets!  When do we want them?  24×7!  Congestion for children!”

Is it “urban jungle dwellers panic if outside the forest of cars”?  A lack of constant traffic makes people nervous?

[slc]

Apparently protetesters were

Apparently protetesters were also blocking the road to cyclists this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/bristolcyclists/posts/9473161649381409/

(about halfway down)

[hawkinspeter]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/police-called-residents-block-work-9895466

It’s proper kicking off!

[hawkinspeter]

bensynnock wrote:

bensynnock wrote:

They could send some protesting farmers with their tractors down there. They’d love that.

Oi, St Werburgh’s City Farm is over there!

[bensynnock]

They could send some
They could send some protesting farmers with their tractors down there. They’d love that.

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

I hope it doesn’t sound too mean-spririted when I note that the face of opposition has publicly said that they live on Victoria Ave. That road had around 500 vehicle movements each day in the count before the scheme – compared to 4,000 for Beaufort Rd, 5,000 for Avonvale Rd, and 18,000 for Church Rd. 

I haven’t really looked at the specific changes for Victoria Ave, but that’s had traffic calming and a one way section at the school end for a while anyway. That’s a ridiculous amount of traffic that was using Beaufort Rd when it was not nearly wide enough at some points for two lanes.

Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion about Victoria Ave as it’s already got the speed bumps etc. but I’m surprised that residents along Avonvale Rd are happy with all the traffic.

[slc]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Maybe the council should put up signage to encourage motor traffic through those areas – after alll, that’s clearly what the residents want…

I wonder how quickly they’d all decide they wanted a LTN after all.

There’s plenty of traffic along Avonvale and Marsh Rd already without needing to encourage it.

I hope it doesn’t sound too mean-spririted when I note that the face of opposition has publicly said that they live on Victoria Ave. That road had around 500 vehicle movements each day in the count before the scheme – compared to 4,000 for Beaufort Rd, 5,000 for Avonvale Rd, and 18,000 for Church Rd. 

 

[hawkinspeter]

brooksby wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Maybe the council should put up signage to encourage motor traffic through those areas – after alll, that’s clearly what the residents want…

I wonder how quickly they’d all decide they wanted a LTN after all.

There’s plenty of traffic along Avonvale and Marsh Rd already without needing to encourage it.

[brooksby]

Maybe the council should put

Maybe the council should put up signage to encourage motor traffic through those areas – after alll, that’s clearly what the residents want…

I wonder how quickly they’d all decide they wanted a LTN after all.

[wtjs]

Appears that the scheme

Appears that the scheme installation has now been paused

Sad news! I hope the council acts against the baying mob.

[hawkinspeter]

Appears that the scheme

Appears that the scheme installation has now been paused:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/installation-bristol-liveable-neighbourhood-paused-9853434

Installation of a liveable neighbourhood trial in east Bristol has been paused after protesters repeatedly blocked contractors. While some of the measures have been installed, the majority of changes to the roads in the trial area have not yet been rolled out.

The East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood trial aims to prevent drivers from cutting through residential roads in St George, Redfield and Barton Hill. But Bristol City Council has faced strong opposition from some people living in the area, as their journeys would become longer.

Opponents of the trial appear to have won a battle against the council, as large parts of the area remain unchanged. The installation of the measures was due to end this month, but little can be seen of them so far, apart from temporary road signs saying “bus gates not operational”.

[hawkinspeter]

brooksby wrote:

Thanks for this.  Mogg Street is often used as a rat-run by motorists (and cyclists, to be fair) who want to avoid the Mina Road mini-roundabout, so this will be interesting… 

I’d say that Mogg Street is more likely used by cyclists who opt for the bridge over the M32 rather than the underpasses as opposed to trying to avoid Mina Road.

I reckon the worst part of Mina Road are the loose bricks in the road surface, though the mini-roundabout can be tricky when vans park too close to the corner and block your view.

[Author]

Replies