Through traffic to be banned in parts of Bristol for ‘liveable neighbourhood’ scheme

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 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.

I'm not arguing for a plebiscite - that's no way to run a representative democracy. But considering the views of those affected by significant changes is.

Fair enough, people driving through have a stake. A reasonable decision by BCC, if not my own preference, would have been to modify Beaufort Rd and others to be safe for that purpose. I am not sure how, but I suppose double yellow lines and pedestrian crossings would feature.

I think we are saying 'rat running' where we could equally well say 'dangerous driving'. I don't mind people driving along the streets where I live. I do object to them mounting the pavement or driving at excessive speed for the conditions, and doing these things daily.

slc wrote:

I think we are saying 'rat running' where we could equally well say 'dangerous driving'

I take "rat running" to be taking shortcuts through streets which aren't really suitable (at least when lots of people do the same thing). Dangerous driving is more how you drive, rather than where - albeit if lots of people choose unsuitable routes at the same time then it'll likely encourage more dangerous driving (mounting kerbs, unsuitable speeds, etc.). There's definitely some of that round here and it does need to be addressed.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

..Dangerous driving is more how you drive, rather than where - albeit if lots of people choose unsuitable routes at the same time then ...

Ok, let me have another go at articulating this. Sometimes it is the location and volume of traffic that is dangerous, rather than what we usually think of as individual driver behaviour. Crews Hole Rd and Beaufort Rd at times experience such volumes that crossing the road is dangerous, yet there are no crossings to mitigate that danger. We tend to think of this situation as something that should be managed by road design, since individual drivers are not likely to reduce speed sufficiently to share the road with pedestrians. But it *is* the decision of motorists to participate in these dangerous conditions so dangerous driving in experience, if not Dangerous Driving in law

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I'm not arguing for a plebiscite - that's no way to run a representative democracy. But considering the views of those affected by significant changes is.

A plebiscite? Is that like when you start a petition calling for a new general election because you don't like the result of the last one?

Something Something Brexit... ? (sorry)

Anyway I think they should try calling them "loveable neighbourhoods".

Lavable neigbourhoods? Could be handy on bins day

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I also dislike the term "rat-run" for people who are just trying to get to work, etc.

Aren't rats just trying to go about their business too?

Won't you think of the residents rodents?

All people want is their street not to be clogged / made noisy and unpleasant by all those other drivers.  To be able to find a parking space.  (Not to have all those campervan types there...)

If only there were some way to make that happen?

And then someone comes along and removes your parking spot, or stops you driving both ways, or blocks one end of the street, or you find that when you get to the main road it's busier than ever and you could be waiting 5 minutes to turn out ...

Those meddling council busy-bodies are just playing with people's lives.  They haven't a clue about our local streets and they just didn't listen to us *.  It was perfectly fine before (well - perhaps we could have used some new freeways).

It's going to be painful, more so than it was in NL (where there were riots, various types of criminal damage etc. - for years).  Because we can't even remember when everyone cycled sometimes, and we've run down our public transport and literally "built in" having to drive.  As Chris Boardman says though - what is the cost of continuing to do the same as before?

* And not infrequently the council has made an awful mess of it...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Also in that article there's this bit:

Quote:

One local mum who works in Barton Hill and drives from there to Whitehall everyday to pick up her children from school said she found herself 15 minutes late due to an increase in traffic. She left her work at Barton Hill Trading Estate at 2.45pm but claimed what would usually be a ten-minute car journey or 26 minutes by foot, took her over 45 minutes as a result of an increase in traffic congestion.

So, it looks like she can choose a 45 minute drive or a 26 minute walk. It's almost as if the scheme is encouraging people to walk short distances instead of driving.

  Problem is, too many people would still rather do the 45 minute drive and complain about it than do the 25 minute walk…

brooksby wrote:

... too many people would still rather do the 45 minute drive and complain about it than do the 25 minute walk…

No rounding - it was 26 minutes. Looks as though someone has walked it many times and found the mean to obtain such precision. Not just looked on google maps and decided that was simply unacceptable.

I have some sympathy for the 'not yet sufficient infrastructure' comment. The LTN will probably improve active travel within its bounds, but at the west end you are still faced with Queen Ann Rd Tunnel and Silverthorne Lane (quiet, hidden, heavy construction for the last year and the next year), Feeder Rd (heavy traffic, murder lane), or Church Rd to Old Market (heavy traffic on a multi lane roundabout or flooded subways, then heavy traffic).

brooksby wrote:

 

  Problem is, too many people would still rather do the 45 minute drive and complain about it than do the 25 minute walk…

Same for rats (apologies for repeated link)!

"Surprisingly, two of the three rats chose to take the less efficient path of turning away from the reward and running to the car to drive to their Froot Loop destination. This response suggests that the rats enjoy both the journey and the rewarding destination."

But but but it used to be a ten minute drive?!

YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE!  WHAT FOR?!

And lots of people will be able to say "yes - this thing here is worse for me now than it was before".  And because human loss aversion and the fact that people make far more noise when unhappy than they do when happy, this will become a "big issue".

To be fair to them the UK is at such a point of motor dependence / "cultural capture" by the motor and associated industries * that it almost certainly will get quite a bit worse for many people - for a long time - before there is a lot of better.

First - we will need quite a lot of push (negative measures - making driving more expensive, less convenient) as well as cosy pull (nice positive things like cycle paths which are good enough for children to use).

Then - we currently just discount many of the benefits of less driving e.g. less pollution, low level incidental exercise, quieter streets, nicer places, being able to walk easily, more efficient public transport (not held up by cars) etc. Because we don't notice or don't do those things, because our current system!

* Even without getting all conspiracy-theorist we are trying to work against the natural direction of some of the most well-resourced, best connected organisations with lots of very smart employees - who probably don't want a sudden career change.  Although the motor and fuel industries have provided us with several completely real, malicious conspiracies!  However if you want more of that see notjustbikes' video on SUVs or the dystopian vision of the robotaxi future.

YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE!  WHAT FOR?!

So, like the Brexit vote, the dimwits hit out at some group they have no intention of ever joining- it's those cyclists and all those expensive empty cycle lanes

Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant consultation, far more than I remember for any previous local decision, and council elections where the winning councillors supported the scheme.

The scheme also made it to the Mail Online. No link for the usual reasons. The article is a essentially lifted from the Bristol Post with more lurid language ('human shields'). Comments were 95% opposed to LTNs and 5% probably opposed too but unable to resist racist sneering about the protesters.

To be fair, I thought the original was poorly written too, though in a different, high-jargon style. I'm not surprised that someone found it condescending.

road.cc'ers will no doubt enjoy the final argument of the rebuttal:

helen hughes wrote:

Bristol’s hills, narrow roads, pot holes and weather patterns do not make cycling conducive...

Seems as though Helen Hughes might have missed something from that list of discouragements, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

How about this one in the cable? I have not really paid attention to the cable before (not enough cycling clatch, I guess) but it seems to include both balance and some information.

https://thebristolcable.org/2024/11/traffic-jams-on-roads-around-east-br...

Agreed, largely.

I have a bit (not too much) of sympathy for the 'not consulted' claim. I replied to the original consultation as did many others and the top items were improved crossings and junctions. These were ruled out as impossible for a trial - too expensive - but they are needed. Working on those and a smaller LTN might have been less contentious and increased the chances of acceptance across Bristol.

Or maybe drivers would moan about even the loss of the odd parking space.