Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
chrisonabike wrote:
April fools from Bristol Live?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/congestion-bristol-getting-worse-locals-10062351 (Just seems to be a bunch of online chat – but not all entirely misinformed).Congestion in Bristol is getting worse as locals say ‘just improve public transport!'I like the cut of Kaylon64’s jib:
The congestion in our towns & cities has been caused by a massive rise in private vehicle use since the 1980’s coupled with a lack of investment in public transport. The Tories championed individual car transport as ‘freedom’ and had the buses and trains privatised. Now we have mass congestion & high pollution. So the pendulum is swinging the other way with pedestrians, buses & cycling being prioritised. It’s estimated that over 30 million vehicles hit UK roads every day. This isn’t about attacking motorists but re-balancing the system.
Parents say East Bristol
Parents say East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood makes roads ‘100 times safer’ for children:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/parents-say-east-bristol-liveable-10059949
Several locals turned up at City Hall to speak to councillors about their views on the scheme, during a meeting of the transport policy committee on Thursday, March 20. Many more submitted written statements. In total, 39 of the 62 statements were supporting the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood, compared to 10 who opposed the scheme.
But do you remember a time when ‘hire station’ was open? It has been closed and falling down for so long now that I am expecting it to become a listed buildingI do indeed.
I reckon that this housing devleopment on stilts, above the car-park within an actual-park, and just on the edge of the LTN , will interest you. See if you can guess what the main point of discussion was at the time :)Ah, a brilliant find!
In the spirit of that – perhaps all the residents could volunteer to have car parking installed on top of their houses? Or have the vehicles installed downstairs – like some of places on Church Road or Seneca Street seem to have?
I mean, if it fights discrimination, helps the ambulances get through, reduces congestion and fighting over parking spaces…
I remember when the corner of Seneca Street had a 24-hour petrol station there instead.
Mind you, I remember when Ebeneezer Street had a porn film studio there rather than the current HMO. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/former-porn-studio-become-flats-63770
This chap needs to go back for a physics refresher. Is traffic an incompressible fluid (“it will just go elsewhere”) or not (“there will be more traffic elsewhere” – presumably on another street which is “already congested”)?Or is it failure to understand “if the previous ‘solution’ caused the problem to recur, that’s probably not the ‘solution'”?
“We had a couple of trees, but after a while they were full of squirrels – in fact they were running about and causing problems. So we added some trees and installed more dreys. Now there seem to be a lot more squirrels. But the idea to fence off some of the trees and remove dreys is creating a problem, it just moves the squirrels elsewhere. To fix it we clearly need more squirrel capacity again, that’ll fix things forever!”
Can’t we just move them to Guernsey? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrdnkyvpjgo
Park Street car ban scheme
Park Street car ban scheme not ‘solving problem but moving it’:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/park-street-car-ban-scheme-10049226
However, the government-funded plans have sparked controversy, with some local business owners arguing they may be forced to relocate as reduced traffic could “kill Park Street”. Conservative councillors on the transport policy committee have voiced concerns that the traffic could simply be redirected onto Park Row and past the Bristol Royal Infirmary.Conservative group leader Councillor Mark Weston stated: “We’re creating a problem, we’re not solving it, we’re just moving it.”
In response, Green Cllr Rob Bryher said: “”There’s been lots of literature that shows if you restrict through-traffic, then traffic just evaporates. It’s part of transport planning that everyone understands.
After the meeting Steve Smith, a former Bristol councillor and the Conservative mayoral candidate, said: “The business community have been very clear — this scheme will damage trade for local independent businesses and potentially force them to leave. Why do the Green councillors think they know more about what is good for someone’s business than the people who run them?”
Despite the outcry from local independent businesses, fearing the changes could force them to shut down, only 315 people have signed a petition against the proposed alterations.
slc wrote:
Fair enough. She doesn’t strike me as someone easy to please. I wondered if the article was just a bit poorly edited (elsewhere it has MT talking about traffic *arming* ) and it was the long reverse rather than driving per se that was painful.That makes more sense as I imagine reversing would be tricky if you have reduced mobility. Byron St doesn’t look that narrow in my opinion though – it’s certainly got more space than my road and we get vans and large vehicles navigating through.
brooksby wrote:
In order to access Victoria Avenue in her van, Melissa now drives around to Church Road, passes through Cobden Street and then reverses into her parking space. Melissa says this longer route means she has to endure extra pain due to her disabilities.But she can drive long distances to go on holiday in this thing just fine? Alrighty then
I’m starting to have less sympathy for her
But IIRC her van is the size of a Sprinter or a small bus, so completely inappropriate for an urban environment anyway. She’s just been lucky so far. Not too much sympathy, I’m afraid (although she seems to have become the poster child for “liveable neighbourhoods negatively impact upon the disabled “).I think she should continue having access for her van though. Is the problem actually the size of the roads or is it the pavement parkers? Without having looked at the details, I would have thought that it shouldn’t be too difficult to amend the scheme so that blue card holders can gain access to Victoria Ave.
Disabled woman left in tears
Disabled woman left in tears over Liveable Neighbourhood as residents demand apology:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/disabled-woman-left-tears-over-10045126
Melanie Topping’s disability accessible camper van was in for repairs when Bristol City Council’s contractors created a ‘modal filter’ near her home in Redfield, so Thursday lunchtime was the first time she had attempted to reach her home and the designated parking spot outside it in the vehicle.There has long been a one-way and no entry system near her home at the end of Victoria Avenue, and previously she has been able to drive her large, specially-adapted camper van down other streets further to the east to get onto Victoria Avenue.
But the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood scheme has now closed off those routes to her and the one access road connecting Church Road to Victoria Avenue is too narrow for her large vehicle to fit.
She attempted it and failed on Thursday, so had to reverse through the no-entry sign to reach her home. The experience left her shaken and angry. When asked how she was feeling after finally pulling up, she said: “I don’t have any other words for it, unfortunately, other than rude ones, I’m afraid.
“I shouldn’t have to do this to get to my home, this isn’t right – not when we’ve been pointing this out since July 2023. I shouldn’t be left in this situation at all.”
I hadn’t read Rob Bryher’s
I hadn’t read Rob Bryher’s response:
Green councillor Rob Bryher said: “Water and traffic are not the same thing. Traffic doesn’t work like water. Roads aren’t pipes.“If you block a pipe, obviously the water will go a different way because of physics. If you block traffic, that isn’t the way that it works because it engages people’s travel behaviour. It’s a fundamental transport planning principle.
“There’s been lots of literature that shows if you restrict through-traffic, then traffic just evaporates. It’s part of transport planning that everyone understands if you’ve done a little bit of research into it.
“People behave differently if you change the priorities of a street. It’s just as simple as that. You have to get your head around that a bit more.”
Also on BBC: https://www.bbc
Also on BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2jg18j122o
Park Street improvement plans
Park Street improvement plans approved despite some traders’ fears: https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/park-street-improvement-plans-approved/
Conservative councillors on the transport policy committee warned the traffic could instead be displaced onto Park Row and past the BRI.Mark Weston, leader of Bristol’s Conservative group, said: “Traffic flows like water. Once you start stopping it up, it then moves into random directions.
“We’re creating a problem. We’re not solving it, we’re just moving it.
“We need to have a resilient road network where traffic can flow, not constantly keep limiting the roads that are available to use.”
So, if traffic flows like water, we need to be building aqueducts. Also, how can traffic flow uphill up Park Street?
Good for the Scousers. But meanwhile back in Bristle…
Yul Brynner was a lifelong liverpool fan who didn’t wear aftershave
<singing>
Yul never wore cologne
</singing>
Bristol’s low traffic bullies have gone too far (according to a spectator article)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bristols-low-traffic-bullies-have-gone-too-far/
Though not so far as Bristol’s high traffic bullies (screenshot)
I don’t remember this happening:
Almost two years ago, following a packed public meeting in which people voiced their concerns about longer journey times and the effect on local businesses, the council suspended its plans for the LTN. Subsequently, it ran a second consultation on the scheme which yielded 760 objections and 427 responses in support.This bit strikes me as odd as surely those are all valid reasons to implement the Liverpool Neighbourhood:
Hearing councillors and officials talk, I also noticed how the reason for the scheme changed: sometimes it was to do with tackling ‘congestion’ and ‘pollution’; at other times, it was presented as a fix for ‘climate change’ and achieving ‘net zero’.Sorry, but that opinion piece is a bunch of horse-shit.
