Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Opinion piece by a Lawrence
Opinion piece by a Lawrence Hill councillor:
Another day, another
Another day, another BristolPost piece about Park St:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/park-street-bus-gate-latest-10008820
Conservatives are demanding that “disastrous” £15million plans to close Park Street to cars and vans should be abandoned. Green-led Bristol City Council announced in January that a 24-hour bus gate would be installed at the top of the road where it meets Park Row at Clifton Triangle and a bus lane to run up from the Centre.
slc wrote:
I think it has got better in some locations. For example, Baldwin Street and Victoria Street. Bus gates there have improved conditions greatly for me. I guess I might feel differently if I wanted to drive a car that way :)Better in some places and worse in others. There’s still plenty of gridlock going on. I want them to bring back the rickety flyover by Temple Meads. (https://www.bristolworld.com/retro/bristol-redcliffe-flyover-nostalgic-pics-4145123)
Council showing ‘utter
Council showing ‘utter disregard’ for people against Liveable Neighbourhood scheme:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/council-showing-utter-disregard-people-10004484
While few who are proposing and defending the EBLN will say it out loud, but the whole point is to make it so difficult and bothersome to drive around the area that people choose not to, and opt to walk or cycle instead. At the same time, though, Redfield and the A420 is still a key commuter artery for drivers heading to and from work or school from further out in the east of Bristol or beyond, into the city centre.Look, can everyone just stop driving so much?
chrisonabike wrote:
Haven’t spent much time in Bristol for decades – but back in the day much was pretty gridlocked at least once per day. Has it got better?Nope
Controversial £15 million
Controversial £15 million Park Street scheme will ‘gridlock’ Bristol:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/controversial-15-million-park-street-9983746
Another collection of opinions?
Local ‘nimbyism’ dismissed as
Local ‘nimbyism’ dismissed as consensus is new scheme will ‘increase footfall’
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/news-opinion/local-nimbyism-dismissed-consensus-new-9980133
(Not much to see there – just a collection of opinions)
Opposition to controversial
Opposition to controversial East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood ‘will filter away’ say council bosses
Dump your swasticarWhilst I agree with the sentiment, there’s a lot of people who bought swasticars before it become known that Musk is a Nazi. It seems unfair that they’re now being targetted and they can barely sell their car without making a big loss.
Tories blast ‘baffling’ plan
Tories blast ‘baffling’ plan to restrict cars on Park Street:
I expect it is baffling if you’re some kind of Tory carbrain that doesn’t care about people’s health and well-being.
Yesterday (but after my previous comments, otherwise I’d have mentioned it then) I read that EBLN is the Cable’s most active topic. They’ve had “almost 1,000” responses to their request for engagement. Clearly there’s a lot of feeling about it, despite it directly affecting only a small area of the city. What we don’t know is how much of that engagement might be whipped up by outside actors of the “Fair Fuel” type.I wouldn’t discount outside influences, but people do seem to get very passionate when driving is criticised. People often see it as infringing their freedom, whilst caring very little about the people subjected to car pollution. Just look at the drivers who decided to take a shortcut over the graves when Beaufort Rd was blocked as a car route.
My attitude is that driving restrictions are inevitable in high population areas (i.e. cities) as cars are just the worst use of road space and inevitably lead to congestion if everyone tries to drive. Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments against LTNs are disingenuous and just seek to perpetuate problems rather than attempting to improve matters.
What I find most puzzling is that the residents along Avonvale Rd don’t seem to want less traffic and pollution in return for slight inconvenience (the disabled lady is claiming that she is majorly inconvenienced by the proposed scheme). I also find it difficult to believe that the shops along there are reliant on motor traffic for their trade.
The Anti-EBLN group have now approached ACORN for support. It’s way out of ACORN’s usual field (housing, but they have also acted on eg public toilets) but the argument is that the council are not talking to the residents, so they want help in an area ACORN are proven good at (getting the council to listen). Also, Reform (and the non-parliamentary further right) are trying to use this issue to gain a foothold. It’s not certain that ACORN will adopt the issue; it’s causing rifts. And of course there’s a large overlap in membership between ACORN and Greens, including some councillors (I’m not sure about the councillors for the relevant ward though).I’m surprised that Reform would get any traction – aren’t they mainly racist (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c10l5qd8p60o), which wouldn’t fit well with East Bristol’s varied demographics.
Ultimately, the EBLN is a 6-month trial, so I think it needs to be less politically motivated and instead needs to focus on the aims – reduce traffic, congestion and pollution whilst promoting active travel. It may not be a good fit for Avonvale Rd, but currently that’s not even in the trial, so we can’t evaluate it and have to rely on who’s shouting loudest.
4.6% increase in rail fares today. Fuel duty freeze maintained.I wonder why we seem to have so many issues with congestion and angry drivers in this country? If only there were examples of other countries that had found ways to promote active travel and drastically reduce car use and pollution?
chrisonabike wrote:
That’s not a bad idea … only in the UK I think it’s far more important that we concentrate on public transport being far more extensive and reliable. Public transport isn’t extensive because “lack of demand” because people who can, often drive. It’s not reliable in part because buses get stuck in traffic, because people drive. Most people who drive could afford the bus. But the buses don’t go where they want, when they want or simply can’t be depended on. (Admittedly with our decision to keep subsidising private motoring it may be that in terms of just fuel cost vs. bus fare it’s cheaper to drive!)The way I think of it is that by having free/low-cost public transport (I’d also include trains by the way), we’d be encouraging teens/young adults to be using it far more often and get into the habit of not always driving. However, that’s not going to be popular with people that make money from selling cars etc.
slc wrote:
Various financial incentives (bus tickets, second hand bike vouchers, bus gate exemptions) to be offered to residents. £100 bus tickets for everyone, the other items for people in low incomes. https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/residents-liveable-neighbourhood-trial-area-receive-350-free-bus-tickets/ I wonder if this was the result of negotiations with the (impressively organized and committed) local opposition. Or just the council hoping to erode the opposition enough to install.I like the idea, but I very rarely get the bus – maybe two or three times a year. I’ll probably give my £100 bus tickets to a friend if they’re easy to transfer.
However, this does play into my long-held idea that public transport should be subsidised so that journeys are free (or very close to free) for the public – that’s one way to reduce congestion.