[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

[Dnnnnnn]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I live in a side road that connects Church Rd and Beaufort Rd

I also live in the area and am not against changes, least of all along Beaufort Road. My objection is to suggestions that the views of people who travel through the area shouldn’t be considered, and that considering them is somehow “Votes for rat-runs”. While I’m here, I also dislike the term “rat-run” for people who are just trying to get to work, etc.

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Good, because it really is a poor choice. I cycle along it against the rat run tide about once a week, it is white knuckle stuff at peak times. Part of the LTN scheme involves traffic calming and new crossings on Crews Hole, but later. In my road planning fantasy, that would have happened first (along with congestion charging on Church Road, all funds paying for new bikes for children in Barton Hill).

Totally agree – that’s a very nice route for walking along by the river when you’re not forced onto Crews Hole Rd.

[slc]

Good, because it really is a
Good, because it really is a poor choice.

I cycle along it against the rat run tide about once a week, it is white knuckle stuff at peak times.

Part of the LTN scheme involves traffic calming and new crossings on Crews Hole, but later. In my road planning fantasy, that would have happened first (along with congestion charging on Church Road, all funds paying for new bikes for children in Barton Hill).

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Try Hanham to Brislington.

Seems like only a minority of routes go through Crews Hole Rd from my dragging around the start and stop positions.

[slc]

Try Hanham to Brislington.
Try Hanham to Brislington.

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

There wiil be some people outside the scheme that are affected other than being denied rat-runs. Google Maps is now routing drivers down Troopers Hill Rd and along Crews Hole Rd rather than Beaufort Rd/Blackswarth Rd. Neither are any better suited for heavy traffic than Beaufort Rd. Crews Hole Rd has long been a traffic nightmare. Troopers Hill Road not so much, but its gradient means that it is very poorly suited.

I just played around a little with Google Maps with directions going from Hanham/Warmley toTemple Meads and that didn’t choose Crews Hole Rd. The main routes were A420 or Whitehall Rd with only a couple of minutes difference between them.

[slc]

About 10 years ago, a traffic

About 10 years ago, a traffic management scheme with cycle infra was proposed, covering those newly affected areas plus Beaufort Rd. It was not great, really, because it would have been one-way rat-running rather than none, but might have at least cut out the frequent pavement driving. It went though planning and was announced to go ahead, but was then shelved temporarily after objection from drivers to be denied their two-way rat-runs. Temporary became permanant after the money put aside was spent on other things (one of Bristol’s many neglected bridges IIRC). 

So we do seem to be getting somewhere.

[chrisonabike]

Yes.  This is the difficult

Yes.  This is the difficult part of change.  Things are … different!  Of course we want the kind of change that only makes things better, or only affects other people.

We can’t – or at least in the UK, won’t – get to the “now everything is how it should be” at once.  Some people will be negatively impacted – possibly those who do not live in the affected area or even travel through it.

In fact that is half of the point of transforming our streets.  The other part – making “alternatives” to driving journeys – often can’t even start without reducing traffic levels / claiming space back from the motor vehicle.  Because driving is such a space-inefficient form of transport and it suppresses demand for other modes.

Perhaps some of the places where the traffic is now going instead will start petitioning for similar traffic-reducing treatment?

Everywhere will be “difficult” but I recall traffic at rush hours in Bristol from a couple of decades ago and remember thinking it was the heaviest / slowest I’d experienced in the UK…

[slc]

There wiil be some people

There wiil be some people outside the scheme that are affected other than being denied rat-runs. Google Maps is now routing drivers down Troopers Hill Rd and along Crews Hole Rd rather than Beaufort Rd/Blackswarth Rd. Neither are any better suited for heavy traffic than Beaufort Rd. Crews Hole Rd has long been a traffic nightmare. Troopers Hill Road not so much, but its gradient means that it is very poorly suited.

[hawkinspeter]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Dnnnnnn wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Votes for rat-runs then!

I’m unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.

Well, a large amount of traffic going along e.g. Beaufort Rd would be people not living in St George but merely travelling through the area and aiming to avoid the traffic along Church Rd (the parallel main road A420). They may well want to vote against the scheme as Beaufort Road no longer allows them to use it like that – i.e. rat-running. I live in a side road that connects Church Rd and Beaufort Rd and previously quite a bit of traffic along our road was just people rat-running – it’s so much quieter now which is appropriate as these are residential roads (also very narrow with parking along both sides).

Ideally, it’s going to be local residents that change their behaviour and walk/cycle instead of just automatically driving to the shops – there’s an Aldi, Tesco and a selection of independent shops along Church Rd just a few minutes away.

However, it’s local residents that will feel the benefit of the schemes, so people just travelling throught the area are almost certain to not want their choice of routes to be restricted – they want to rat run through our streets.

[Dnnnnnn]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Votes for rat-runs then!

I’m unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.

[chrisonabike]

Votes for rat-runs then!

Votes for rat-runs then!

I certainly think councils should be aware of flows.  Of course with cars because “traffic” and space-inefficiency the “why” of that journey is important.  These shouldn’t be necessarily judged the same as e.g. pedestrian and cyclist “desire lines”.  It’s more “we had to drive (as did everyone else did too), so we had no choice but to cut through the residential streets”.

That just says “we’re in motor dependency”, which is hardly news.

There’s also the “I’m in the car – shops are 200 metres in that direction, so I’ll drive there and back”.  We have to decide do we want more of the same (and can we afford it)?

[Dnnnnnn]

And finally: I wonder how

brooksby wrote:

And finally: I wonder how many of the “more than 3,000” signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just people who drive through, or Conservative councillors in Sunderland or something…).

Those who have no connection with the area shouldn’t be heeded – but the views of those who use a road as a means of getting from A to B, even if they are simply passing through, seem perfectly legitimate to me.

[slc]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I had a look at that earlier and thought they were showing a reasonable balance of comments. I don’t get the one about it being in breach of the Disabilities Act.

I chalk it up to cognitive bias.

https://theconversation.com/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-186530?origin=serp_auto

No matter how many times the scheme planners point out that you will be able to access all streets by motor vehicle, albeit with a change of route, a good chunk of people continue to believe that their street could be closed to motor vehicles (including emergency vehicles, taxis, and vehicles needed for mobility) entirely.

The LTN planners have been even more thoughtful following consultation. The bus gates will permit vehicles that are registered as mobility requirements, along with care workers providing care to people in the area.

In case anyone wonders, I am not involved with the scheme! I just think it might improve traffic conditions in the area.

Edit: the disabled commenter mentioned has become quite prominent in the opposition in recent days and her specific issue is clear: she uses a fairly large van adapted for her mobility needs and says that she will not consistently be able to access the half of Victoria road where she lives via the one permitted route, Byron Road, which like many of the streets in the area is narrow with vehicles parked on both sides. The council have spoken with her and accept her concern without proposing much of a solution beyond assuming that it will work out. Maybe that is true, but this could and I think should have been fixed by ensuring a choice of entrance routes (e.g moving the Victoria Rd filter east and reversing the one way direction in one street.)

[slc]

Marsh lane was unchanged on
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday – I don’t think the contractors have been back since the protest.

[Author]

Replies