[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

[chrisonabike]

All good – it’s stuff like

All good – it’s stuff like this which ought to be “just do it already” and which should be “quick wins” (because has zero effect on motor traffic when it’s not vital).  As we’ve seen even “slam dunk” stuff like this can become a battle though!

Also perhaps “nothing to see here” but to my eye curious language: “… temporary barriers” but ” … The permanent schemes encourage …” – suggesting that maybe even temporary barriers erected for a short period twice a day might be seen as a big change and subject to being removed if “it causes congestion” etc.

I’m actually wary of changes that have little impact – because these tend to be “window dressing” set out so we can say we have one thing when in fact the status quo is unchallenged.

Example: my building is actually on a signed “home zone”.  It’s a cul-de-sac leading to a car park – street goes nowhere else.  Some “engineering” has been done – the street is signed 20mph and it narrows to a single lane in several places, plus the required double-yellows and signs are everywhere.  But the home zone sign means nothing legally and of course people carry on as normal, paying little attention to parking restrictions or speed limits.

I’ve not seen children playing in the street.

[hawkinspeter]

Related topic of “School

Related topic of “School Streets”:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/more-bristol-schools-added-list-9798050

Two more schools in Bristol will become official ‘School Streets’ this autumn term. Ashton Gate Primary School in Southville and St Werburgh’s Primary School in St Werburgh’s have joined 11 other schools in Bristol to introduce School Streets.

This means the streets outside these schools are classed as walking, cycling, and wheeling zones, restricting car use with temporary barriers put out across the road at drop off and pick up times at the start and end of the school day. The permanent schemes encourage families to walk, cycle, wheel or scoot to school or park further away from the school and walk the last part of the journey.

Councillor Ed Plowden, Chair of the Transport and Connectivity Committee, said: “I am delighted to welcome two more schools to the Bristol School Streets programme. This scheme provides lots of benefits for local communities, including reducing traffic outside school gates, improving road safety for pupils, reducing air pollution, and boosting the number of children walking, wheeling and cycling to school.”

[slc]

I was surpised by the scale

I was surprised by the scale of the current proposal, given that the previous propsal had been sucessfully opposed, was half the size, and still allowed through traffic (albeit one way on Beaufort Rd and the other on Crews Hole Rd). The Barton Hill and St George sections of the scheme are seperate (with a boundary road between them), so starting with St George (where people are on average a bit wealthier and better able to adapt) might have made sense. But much of the current objection *is* just about the acute impacts of St George part, with Barton Hill still largely permeable to motor traffic.

[hawkinspeter]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

the thousands of existing “LTNs” which have quietly existed in the UK for decades

I think this is one of the issues with some recent LTNs – they have been created as relatively large-scale, high-profile programmes of change that are likely to generate opposition. On one hand, there’s clearly a rational case for comprehensive, integrated changes (and I think that might have been what funding was available for) – but I do wonder if a more incremental, “boiling the frog”, a street or two at a time, might have been more politically astute in some cases.

Also, I think there’s the problem that if the changes aren’t high-profile programmes, then there’s lots of complaints that the residents weren’t informed and even with the well publicised EBLN, there’s still that complaint.

The real issue is that the Tories have deliberately politicised traffic management which has done absolutely nothing to help apart from poison rational discussion of strategies. With the “War on the Motorist™”, any detrimental change is going to get people riled up and then thinking of as many excuses as possible to oppose the change and repeating false tropes (e.g. increases pollution).

[chrisonabike]

Yes, in that LTNs “a street
Yes, in that LTNs “a street or two at a time” would be … cul-de-sacs!

Probably not in that if this didn’t have *any* effect on traffic, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

There may always be slightly better politics or places to choose but I just don’t think anything which makes more than a fractional difference (which would be negated within a year or so by more driving / drivers) is getting done without “outrage” yet. And that is with “picking the battles” (eg. acknowledging in many places doing more than say putting in a crossing by a school is just not possible).

There are a lot of frogs who think they’re nearly at boiling point already, despite the pans being the biggest and best ever, because of the numbers of frogs!

EDIT on particular strategies I recommend some of Chris Boardman’s recent talks.

[chrisonabike]

Making a road one-way can
Making a road one-way can help – that’s also a common Dutch treatment for residential areas. Though in the UK I suspect it will help … once per day! (Which may be worth it of course).

[hawkinspeter]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

the thousands of existing “LTNs” which have quietly existed in the UK for decades

I think this is one of the issues with some recent LTNs – they have been created as relatively large-scale, high-profile programmes of change that are likely to generate opposition. On one hand, there’s clearly a rational case for comprehensive, integrated changes (and I think that might have been what funding was available for) – but I do wonder if a more incremental, “boiling the frog”, a street or two at a time, might have been more politically astute in some cases.

I somewhat agree.

When the changes were first proposed and consulted about (sometime around 2020 if my memory serves), I thought they were going to just make Beaufort Rd one-way which would have made quite a big difference to it. I was then frustrated over the years since when they hadn’t made any changes whatsoever when they could have just made a single change there to see how it works.

However, now that Beaufort Rd doesn’t allow through traffic, I think that’s probably better for the residents along there (and for us on the side roads too).

[Dnnnnnn]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

the thousands of existing “LTNs” which have quietly existed in the UK for decades

I think this is one of the issues with some recent LTNs – they have been created as relatively large-scale, high-profile programmes of change that are likely to generate opposition. On one hand, there’s clearly a rational case for comprehensive, integrated changes (and I think that might have been what funding was available for) – but I do wonder if a more incremental, “boiling the frog”, a street or two at a time, might have been more politically astute in some cases.

[chrisonabike]

Crazyhorse wrote:

Crazyhorse wrote:

LTNs seem to have real adverse impacts for disabled/less mobile residents. If so, then I cannot support them.

Are there any rigorous impact assessments that would reassure us on this?

As HP says – impact assessments are local.  And always depend on the behaviour of motorists in the overall area.

I guess there’s a big one available though – all the thousands of existing “LTNs” which have quietly existed in the UK for decades – and more.

Then there’s much of the urban environment of NL – they apply these very commonly.

Local authorities could always apply stuff like “blue badge only” parking, or bollards which let through / traffic lights which halted other traffic to permit residents who’d been assessed as having disabilities priority.  In fact – they could start doing that right now wherever people might be impeded by other traffic!

But… they do this in a very limited fashion if at all.  Because those who need this are drowned out by the cries of those who actually don’t but feel they might be delayed.  It doubtless costs even more money, and adding this can see people take to the courts to challenge it or just start cheating / gaming the system (blue badge parking enforcement anyone?).

There ia lot of concern.  That’s understandable if life is already hard for you, and you’ve realised that most people don’t really give a stuff.  Of course – it also turns out that some of the concern comes from people who only get concerned about others when it might affect them.

[chrisonabike]

Crazyhorse wrote:

Crazyhorse wrote:

My main concern is the potential impacts for less mobile and disabled residents. Less mobile residents may simply be unable to walk/cycle and there is an absence of any viable public transport in Bristol meeting their needs.  

(part 1) As HP says a LTN should not prevent vehicle access (otherwise it’s not an LTN, it’s a “pedestrianised street”.

The dilema we have is this: the status quo isn’t good – but that is the baseline for people, usually.  Worse – keeping existing road policies will lead to worse congestion *.  So what we’re doing now is already not helping less mobile and disabled residents.

But – without some “push” (AKA less convenience) for motorists in general nothing can change.  We can’t only have a “pull” effect from adding “nice things” like cycling and improved public transport.  a) We need space for this, which is currently clogged with private motor traffic.  b) We “can’t afford it” because of the costs of providing for all that traffic. c) There “isn’t sufficient demand” for buses / cycling – because the default is “jump in the car”.  And until the cycling and public transport are a LOT more attractive that will still seem the best option for most people.

Certainly public transport is generally bad in the UK, but for reasons above just adding more buses won’t fix much.

In general we need to get to a point where there are viable alternatives to driving.  Simply removing through traffic from where it shouldn’t be is a small part of that “chicken and egg” puzzle.

* Because motor vehicle numbers are going up, and often there is no place to put more / wider roads even if that helped.  Which the general consensus is that in the medium to long term it doesn’t.

[slc]

Crazyhorse wrote:

My main concern is the potential impacts for less mobile and disabled residents.

Agreed. Well, also for other groups unable to switch (trades, care workers that need to travel between multiple locations each day), but…

Crazyhorse wrote:

Less mobile residents may simply be unable to walk/cycle and there is an absence of any viable public transport in Bristol meeting their needs.  

We don’t need everyone to walk, wheel or cycle all the time, we just need more people to do it more often. Walk past any traffic queue and tell me that everyone in it is unable to switch modes or change their journey time. 

Crazyhorse wrote:

LTNs seem to have real adverse impacts for disabled/less mobile residents. If so, then I cannot support them.

Are there any rigorous impact assessments that would reassure us on this?

In Bristol? Depends on your view of rigour. At any rate, the EBLN assessment was not exactly reassuring, though it does point out that “60% of disabled people have no access to a car and use the bus around 20% more than their non-disabled counterparts.” and that “disabled people with a range of learning and physical impairments, state that a reason for their lack of activity is due to the inaccessibility of the pedestrian environment”

https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s82537/Appendix%20E%20-%20Equality%20Impact%20Assessment%20-%20East%20Bristol%20Liveable%20Neighbourhood%20Pilot%20Sept%202022%201.pdf

Elsewhere? Depends on how specific you want the assessment to be.  Peer-reviewed evidence shows that, in London, LTNs reduce traffic on internal roads and do not on average increase traffic on boundary roads. That might be reassuring for people that do need to use motor vehicles. It really depends on the long-run ‘traffic evaporation’, which is not a universal law.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

Turning to specific disucssion of LTNs and disability, its is easy to find qualitative research, which finds that e.g  “Feelings of discrimination were noted by… disabled car users”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X24000632

 

 

[hawkinspeter]

Crazyhorse wrote:

My main concern is the potential impacts for less mobile and disabled residents. Less mobile residents may simply be unable to walk/cycle and there is an absence of any viable public transport in Bristol meeting their needs.  

LTNs seem to have real adverse impacts for disabled/less mobile residents. If so, then I cannot support them.

Are there any rigorous impact assessments that would reassure us on this?

LTNs shouldn’t be designed to prevent vehicle access to streets, but simply to prevent rat-running by the use of bollards/planters/bus gates to restrict one end. This means that residents can still use their vehicles as before, but may have to change their route as one end may be blocked.

Whether it has an adverse impact depends on the specifics of the implementation, but in general, with less through traffic, it should end up being easier for disabled people to gain access and face less danger when getting to/from their vehicle.

A specific problem raised in the East Bristol trial is that one disabled resident requires a large vehicle (to fit their wheelchair) and claims that the access to their street is through a narrow street that isn’t big enough.

Another problem raised is that the main road is now busier, but other trials have shown that it can take a couple of months for motorists to adjust their journeys and other LTNs end up showing reduced traffic and pollution in surrounding areas.

I don’t think that you’ll find “rigorous impact assessments” as these kinds of schemes are all unique and their success/failure depends a lot on the behaviour of individuals. Similarly, you don’t get ‘rigorous impact assessments’ when new roads are built.

[Crazyhorse]

My main concern is the

My main concern is the potential impacts for less mobile and disabled residents. Less mobile residents may simply be unable to walk/cycle and there is an absence of any viable public transport in Bristol meeting their needs.  

LTNs seem to have real adverse impacts for disabled/less mobile residents. If so, then I cannot support them.

Are there any rigorous impact assessments that would reassure us on this?

[brooksby]

Asking the Bristol Post to do

Asking the Bristol Post to do actual journalism? Ha! That’s a good one! 

[slc]

If the emergency vehicle

If the emergency vehicle claim is true, the Bristol Post could ask the police/fire/ambulance services to confim. 

Also in the article:

Ms Dixon who owns Café Conscious, said the increased traffic has harmed footfall: “This place here on a Friday prime time every single seat would have been taken up. We rely on passing trade, on builders. None of them have come in since the road closures.

Café Conscious is on Avonvale Road, which has not yet been modified in any way. The protestors turned away the contractors that came to place the bus gates some weeks ago, and nothing has changed on that road since.

 

[Author]

Replies