[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

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Bus gates to go live from 2nd June. Warning letters till 14 July, PCNs thereafter. https://news.bristol.gov.uk/press-releases/f3ce9e9d-7873–8727-15dde021a3cf/east-bristol-liveable-neighbourhood-bus-gates-to-go-live-in-june The gate road surfaces have also been painted a fetching red (the brick red colour on the one at Pilemarsh having been worn away in 6 months by all the drivers crossing the gate)

Wait for it… wait for it…

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/liveable-neighbourhood-bus-gates-switched-soon/

The travel offers – already described in some quarters as “bribes” – include £100 of First Bus tickets that every household across the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood will receive through the post soon.

For the first six weeks that the bus gates will be operational, drivers travelling through one of them will be sent a warning letter rather than being fined.

This ‘soft enforcement’ phase will come to an end in July and the bus gates will be fully operational from Monday July 14, with a penalty charge notice of up to £70 applicable after this time.

[slc]

Bus gates to go live from 2nd
Bus gates to go live from 2nd June. Warning letters till 14 July, PCNs thereafter.

https://news.bristol.gov.uk/press-releases/f3ce9e9d-7873–8727-15dde021a3cf/east-bristol-liveable-neighbourhood-bus-gates-to-go-live-in-june

The gate road surfaces have also been painted a fetching red (the brick red colour on the one at Pilemarsh having been worn away in 6 months by all the drivers crossing the gate)

[slc]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Pavement parking surge sparks police crackdown in St George:

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/pavement-parking-surge-sparks-police-crackdown-in-st-george/

Well, maybe not a crackdown yet, but a warning of a potential crackdown

Turns out it’s all part of anti-pavement parking task force, which will explore options for a “modern and holistic parking and kerbside strategy”. Truly we are living in a new age.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/new-task-force-tackle-scourge-pavement-parking/

[hawkinspeter]

Pavement parking surge sparks

Pavement parking surge sparks police crackdown in St George:

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/pavement-parking-surge-sparks-police-crackdown-in-st-george/

Well, maybe not a crackdown yet, but a warning of a potential crackdown

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Commenters here and on the cable have noted that this seems to be a self selecting sample, so at high risk of bias (like the petition). It does match my informal but nonetheless rigourous poll of neighbours and random opinion givers, who are sticking with their earliest views. Of course the original consultation exercise was self selecting too, with vague* questions to boot, which is perhaps the reason BCC was surprised by the level of opposition once the scheme was announced. *Plus, naming it a Liveable Neighbourhood (unfamiliar, vague, aspirational term ) rather than a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (common term, if still aspirational) or Restricted Traffic Neighbourhood (the unvarnished truth) We still (I think) don’t know the formal criteria for considering the trial a success. It might simply be about traffic counts, air quality and bus punctuality. Or there might be yet more consultation.

I had a look on BCC’s site and couldn’t find the formal criteria, so I guess they look at the before/after of the different modes of transport and then see if there’s reduced traffic and more active travel etc.

https://www.ask.bristol.gov.uk/ebln-trial-scheme-information/widgets/106190/faqs#27561

BCC wrote:

The main objectives of the Liveable Neighbourhood trial scheme are to achieve:

• A reduction in through motor traffic within the Liveable Neighbourhood and an increase in cycling,walking and public transport.
• An overall reduction of motor vehicle movements across the area, when considering boundaryroads and the inner area together.

These objectives will be assessed by monitoring traffic, walking and cycling levels both within the trial area and on the immediate boundary roads

[slc]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

There’s also this article at The Bristol Cable about the data they’ve collected from residents: https://thebristolcable.org/2025/05/east-bristols-liveable-neighbourhood-is-this-really-progress/

Seems like the majority of respondents don’t like it, but the thing is that it’s a 6 month trial due to the time it usually takes for people to adjust to the changes. From what I’ve seen along Church Road, it had huge tailbacks soon after the EBLN was implemented, but seems more or less back to previous levels (apart from the various road works happening in the last week or so which caused issues).

Commenters here and on the cable have noted that this seems to be a self selecting sample, so at high risk of bias (like the petition). It does match my informal but nonetheless rigourous poll of neighbours and random opinion givers, who are sticking with their earliest views.

Of course the original consultation exercise was self selecting too, with vague* questions to boot, which is perhaps the reason BCC was surprised by the level of opposition once the scheme was announced.

*Plus, naming it a Liveable Neighbourhood (unfamiliar,
vague, aspirational term ) rather than a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (common term, if still aspirational) or Restricted Traffic Neighbourhood (the unvarnished truth)

We still (I think) don’t know the formal criteria for considering the trial a success. It might simply be about traffic counts, air quality and bus punctuality. Or there might be yet more consultation.

[hawkinspeter]

There’s also this article at

There’s also this article at The Bristol Cable about the data they’ve collected from residents: https://thebristolcable.org/2025/05/east-bristols-liveable-neighbourhood-is-this-really-progress/

Seems like the majority of respondents don’t like it, but the thing is that it’s a 6 month trial due to the time it usually takes for people to adjust to the changes. From what I’ve seen along Church Road, it had huge tailbacks soon after the EBLN was implemented, but seems more or less back to previous levels (apart from the various road works happening in the last week or so which caused issues).

[Dnnnnnn]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

The idea will be to assume a priori that the EBLN (like all social activities) *is* dominated by implicit power structures, and then detail the how.

My brief reading made me think that she could/would have used the same criticisms whatever measures were introduced, e.g. “measures to encourage driving through the area will disproportionately impact the local poor, while benefiting those awful white middle class people in their ghastly suburbs”.

[chrisonabike]

There are those who are more
There are those who are more interested in how ideas marry up with physical or measurable reality, and there are those who would start by pointing out these are all words and ideas, and they only really have existence within humans – so why not focus on how that works?

Apologies if my summary of the latter is hopeless – not my speciality. I have a small measure of understanding of this eg. any discipline forms a power structure and is wrapped up in the sociodynamics of the environment and that can be pretty important … but I’m also a believer that there are some hard realities out there (or at least, currently mutually reinforcing reproduceable experimental results) and that has *some* importance…

I nod along with (philospher) Daniel Dennett’s comment on some of his critics – IIRC he described them as sophisticates who having seized the concept that truths are relative are professionally uninterested in the idea of a theory being “correct” or not!

[slc]

At a guess, the PhD student
At a guess, the PhD student is interested in qualitative methods/critical theory rather than empirical methods. The idea will be to assume a priori that the EBLN (like all social activities) *is* dominated by implicit power structures, and then detail the how.

No, it’s not an academic style I much like either, but it is popular.

[chrisonabike]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I was a bit disappointed with her opinion piece as I assumed that an academic examination of the EBLN would include some stats and comparisons with other areas and socio-economic backgrounds etc.

Depends what kind of academic discipline / lens this is being examined through.  Perhaps it’s dialectical materialism?

Or perhaps she’s taken some of the council’s documents / writings in favour of this and applied some kind of deconstructionism?

[hawkinspeter]

I was a bit disappointed with

I was a bit disappointed with her opinion piece as I assumed that an academic examination of the EBLN would include some stats and comparisons with other areas and socio-economic backgrounds etc. Of course, it’s too early to gather stats from the trial (I don’t think it’s officially started yet as the bus gates aren’t yet operational), but there’s some stats available for the various London LTNs.

I don’t think she’s really bringing any new ideas to the topic and of course it doesn’t help that I disagree with her opinion.

[chrisonabike]

hawkinspeter wrote:

I missed this opinion bit in the Bristol Cable by Sara Melasecchi who’s writing a PHD on the EBLN:

In terms of LTNs I think she’s completely overlooking the fact that the richer folks already have effective LTNs: cul-de-sacs, nice flats in city centres (a bit more noisy perhaps but often off the main “routes”), quiet low-density estates or villages with roads that aren’t through-routes.

AFAICS one could equally (in fact with more reason) say “mass motoring hits the poor most”.  Let’s see how that works:

“…Disabled people and those with long-term illnesses who cannot use cars for basic mobility.  Residents with no driving experience, no spare cash for a car (and its serious operating costs), and nowhere safe to park one (or no spot nearby). … Firstly, mass motoring prioritises a specific type of driver – typically able-bodied, wealthier, and lifestyle-driven. These roads enable the wealthiest to live in nice places with high property values and fewer ‘people we don’t like’, away from the estates and workplaces of the poor.  Those are the people who are predominantly affected by the hours of travel and gridlock mass motoring brings.  The investment can literally go wherever is most financially attractive because the poor seeking jobs will usually manage to scrape together enough money to run a vehicle and put up with the time spent driving there”.

She also seems to be doing a “the poor are always with us – so let’s not try and improve things. There have been plenty examples of cynical cons from the outset where people claim to be helping while robbing – and in practice divert money and push the poor elsewhere.  But even if genuine then those more able will just come in and take the benefits”.

There is indeed some truth to that, but again that is often the way the world is.  That has to be tackled in each instance, and it’s not specific to LTNs or bicycles or active travel.  In fact that argument would apply to anything (“installing clean water will only only benefit the middle classes…” – or perhaps “turning over the streets and roads to motoring will only benefit the middle classes”!).

I think it’s best to agree that top down initiatives need very careful scrutiny.  And follow the money!  It would be ideal if we could somehow just facilitate “help locals help themselves” – provide some ideas / training / funding but they get to drive the project (like the principle behind the “appropriate technology” ideas).  That’s perhaps harder to do though with urban development / transport because we usually need to look at a wider area.

The best counter-argument is simply to point at places where it’s happened in less-than-well-to-do neighbourhoods and the benefits.

Here’s one: Crooswijk – (Google says) one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Rotterdam (and in NL ) – and Rotterdam is known as more of a car town in NL (long story but the 2nd World War didn’t help).  And … they certainly still have cars there.  But according to Streetview there is in fact the same kind of approach there – one way streets, modal filtering, permeability for cycling, there is public transport around the edges (trams).  (Perhaps it’s been “gentrified” though?  Dutch readers can let me know!).  I’m sure they still have all kinds of problems, but some of those brought by car dependence are reduced.

[chrisonabike]

Ah – the “environmentalism /

hawkinspeter wrote:

I missed this opinion bit in the Bristol Cable by Sara Melasecchi who’s writing a PHD on the EBLN:

Ah – the “environmentalism / (in fact insert almost anything here)” is bad because it hits the poorest / least resilient most argument.

Any change I can think of hits the least priviledged those most.  And those higher up the tree almost always derive more benefit regardless.

I note this seems to be quite a common theme in writings although I’ll leave it to others to examine this.  But I can understand a visceral response like “get to f*** preachy types with priviledge.  F*** off council, ignoring us most of the time, then messing us around and creating yet more regulations about what we can and can’t do”.

The real questions are (yet again another nod to Chris Boardman’s talk):

a) are things OK now? (some places – maybe, urban poor places – no.  Inequality – large numbers in some places simply don’t have / can’t get a car.  And we’ve got road death, the other health effects (pollution, road noise, diseases of inactivity), road infra we can’t afford to maintain well…oh plus climate for anyone who cares / feels that transport emissions are a factor there)

b) is “do nothing” an option? (no – mostly because of problems abovewe have increasing numbers of people and “finance” now gets more people into a car and and driving is a hugely space-inefficient mode)

c) what about those shift workers?  The companies often don’t care – while they can get workers who get themselves there nothing changes.

d) If the complaint is “public transport is shit” why don’t we just fix that?  (problem is that the buses get stuck in traffic, and while it’s still easy for people to drive most will continue to drive, meaning low demand for public transport – cycle continues)

e) why not just make driving easier / more accessible for the deprived? (not helpful because gridlock / doesn’t address issues of where people would park, and to make space we’d be knocking down people’s houses and it’s unlikely those would be the rich folks…)

f) what are the options then? (this is more up for debate)

[hawkinspeter]

I missed this opinion bit in

I missed this opinion bit in the Bristol Cable by Sara Melasecchi who’s writing a PHD on the EBLN:

https://thebristolcable.org/2025/05/east-bristol-liveable-neighbourhood-good-intentions-arent-enough/

I don’t really agree with what she’s writing though. I don’t see the EBLN being about the “climate”, but far more about making our neighbourhood better for the residents whilst also reducing pollution, noise and danger.

Sara Melasecchi wrote:

Shift workers with rigid schedules in a city where buses don’t run when they need them. Parents and carers juggling childcare or eldercare, without flexible jobs or supportive employers. Disabled people and those with long-term illnesses who rely on cars for basic mobility. Residents with no cycling experience, no spare cash for a bike, and nowhere safe to store one.

These are the people hit hardest by the scheme. For them, cars aren’t a luxury—they’re a lifeline.

I think these complaints exist with or without the EBLN, but surely having more people using cars as the main mode of transport is going to cause issues with congestion and cause more problems for those people. At least the EBLN attempts to get those that can easily change transport mode to do so and thus reduce overall congestion. If people have no cycling experience, then keeping things as they are isn’t going to help them, but having calmer local roads can make it much less scary to try it out.

I would guess that cheap electric scooters (the illegal to use on the roads type) are probably more in use in poorer districts as they’re so cheap to run (assuming they’re not confiscated by the police) and convenient for shortish journeys. Reducing the number of drivers is surely going to be of benefit to e-scooter riders.

Sara Melasecchi wrote:

Firstly, green mobility projects now prioritise a specific type of cyclist—typically able-bodied, wealthier, and lifestyle-driven. These schemes boost property values and attract investment, benefiting affluent residents and deepening inequality. Active travel infrastructure, in this context, serves to ‘rebrand’ the neighbourhood and make it appealing to new investments. The result? Gentrification pressures, the creation of environmentally privileged enclaves, and the worsening of conditions for lower-income and minority communities.

As someone who chooses to cycle (though I’ve never taken a driving test), I likely fit into her characterisation (white, male etc). In my view, the EBLN hardly makes much difference to my cycling as I typically go further distances (e.g. commute to Weston-super-Mare) and I tend to choose the direct roads which are very busy such as the A370. What I see in the EBLN is a lot more parents taking kids to school on a bike, so I don’t think it’s particularly accurate to associate the EBLN with leisure cycling – who’s choosing to cycle around St George and Barton Hill unless it’s to get somewhere else?

[Author]

Replies