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

"No true Barton Hill-ite..."

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 ").

chrisonabike wrote:

April fools from Bristol Live?....

Quote:

A staggering five out of six city residents reportedly regard congestion as a stumbling block

That is pretty staggering. The other sixth must have been somewhere else.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Fire engine gets stuck behind east Bristol LTN bollard:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/fire-engine-gets-stuck-behind-10093899

A fire crew got stuck behind a bollard on the way from a bin fire in a block of flats in Barton Hill as they'd forgotten the code to lower it.

I'm quite surprised that the various bollards have apparently remained undisturbed. Some (all?) of them seem to be locked with combination padlocks. I keep meaning to have a closer look so that I can get the same lock for my bike.

Agreed, there was no supension. There were various modifications of the plan, and a long time before the Beafort Rd and Crews Hole Rd one way plan was shelved then forgotten. The supposed second consulation sounds like the (one and only, and always required) statutory consultation. I can see why someone uninvolved might mix that up with the earlier non-statutory co-design etc exercises , but the writer claims to have followed along. But hey, it is The Spectator, where truth is just a fusty old concept like marmalade or sock supsenders.

slc wrote:

Quote:

A staggering five out of six city residents reportedly regard congestion as a stumbling block

Should look where they're going.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

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.

A lot of those streets are terraced houses with narrow footways and cars parked each side, aren't they?  I get what you're saying about blue cards, but still stand by my belief that a van as big as hers is not appropriate as an everyday driver for someone who lives in the city.

I've not been keeping up with this, but I've just had a look on Streetview (latest images mostly from 2023 around Victoria Road) plus maps.

What immediately stands out is:

a) These are relatively "narrow streets" but by no means tiny, except that...
b) ... they're absolutely choked with parking (both sides) *.
c) How does waste collection work?  By effectively having 3 lanes of motor vehicles (two parked and a central area) the houses that do have front yards barely have enough space for a wheely bin (never mind a bike shed)!  Garages almost absent and in the current situation there's no space for them.
d) Public transport?  The whole area south of the A420 (not super-wide) seems similar.

Also - I didn't look through exactly what was changed but just from the maps it looks like (c.2023) there are already a couple of effective LTNs, because entry points have been narrowed (e.g. by build-outs which despite signs don't look attractive for cycling - not sure I'd relish counter-flow cycling here...), several streets are one-way and some potential connections between them are too small / blocked off for cars.

Presumably there was still some "permiability" which allowed others to cut through though?

Overall impression is it is in fact a bit like one of the NL residential areas - except that there are far more parked motor vehicles.  That makes the space ugly and unpleasant - there's no space for e.g. mini street gardens and it's hard to imagine kids playing here.  Presumably all the vehicles reflect the fact that public transport is largely absent or inconvenient (perhaps blocked by queued traffic)?  And maybe the distributor roads are so busy they're not attractive for cycling?

*  FWIW there are a number of camper-van / stretch-transit sized vehicles visible and even a minibus.

Madness, isn't it?

Busses into the centre are not too bad, except at peak times when they crawl along on traffic. There are shops of all shapes and sizes within a few minutes walk, and a railway station. I'm sure many are discouraged from cycling by the heavy traffic, but bikes are still a common sight.

Waste collection works through a combination of amazingly skilled refuse truck driving and bins all over the pavement one day a week.

slc wrote:

Madness, isn't it? Busses into the centre are not too bad, except at peak times when they crawl along on traffic. There are shops of all shapes and sizes within a few minutes walk, and a railway station.  I'm sure many are discouraged from cycling by the heavy traffic, but bikes are still a common sight.

It would be interesting to have the numbers on how often those vehicles get used and what kind of trips (for comparison with other places).  Perhaps some are kept "because we need a car" but actually used rarely?  I wonder if a start could be made by providing some kind of localised long-stay residents' (multi-storey?) parking (as e.g. they're doing here).

In the UK it's clearly going to take lots of different interventions to break the cycle of "need a car to get to places because it's expected and amenities aren't as close as I need and I can't get there by cycling or public transport because too many private motorists..."

And for best impact these should be coordinated also... but that's really hoping!

slc wrote:

Waste collection works through a combination of amazingly skilled refuse truck driving and bins all over the pavement one day a week.

I'm either amazed that they can get through with (presumably) a full sized waste truck, or amazed that she could not.  Although as you say the bin crews will have plenty of practice.

Time for some kei utility vehicles...

Still not quite sure how she could get it in before but not after (but even in the old photos they had narrowed things - but again minibus-sized vehicles got through).

Where she said she had to reverse in - was it here?

On the fence about this one.  It's unfortunate if it's really an issue * - it's harder for people with disabilities, and getting things like modified vehicles is even more of a fight (especially if you don't have an income or a low one because disability etc.)

OTOH sometimes it's just not realistic to fix it for absolutely everyone.  Sometimes - because "people" - the only way more equality could be achieved is by all those at the front of the queue to proactively move aside (good luck...).  And then when a change which affects the more comfortable is proposed from "on high" there's sudden "selective concern" for the handful of people with more difficulties.  Who've been ignored or elbowed aside up until that point **.

No doubt it would be (much?) less convenient for her but if it's beyond the wit / budget to sort this one out more directly perhaps someone could find a garage / designated space for this large, holiday vehicle somewhere that is accessible?

Of course - if it's a designated space I do wonder about the chances of her returning and finding it unoccupied.  But again - that's not really the fault of street improvements (and I do wonder how well it worked in the past for her anyway).  Perhaps the protestors could organise a rota to police her disabled space when she's away?

* I also wonder if it's not just "other people blocked the space with their vehicles - which is a problem but not the "fault" of street treatments really.

**  "We can't have cycle paths here because there's old Mr. Smith who's blind and that would be a danger to him" say people living alongside an urban motorway...

There is a fairly complete description of Ms Topping's circumstances here

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/locked-blocked-liveabl...

Commenters elsewhere have expressed scepticism: after all the refuse truck does drive along the contested Byron Rd. That seems a little harsh to me.

Quote:

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 

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.

hawkinspeter wrote:

... 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.

My first thought on hearing the story a few weeks ago was: could BCC not offer MT some training with (for example) whoever trains the refuse truck drivers, plus a radar kit?  But I imagine everyone is too far down the wedge of opposition for that now.

hawkinspeter wrote:

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

It's not terribly narrow, except for some reason there doesn't seem much space.  If only I could put my finger on how both of those things could be true...  But anyway, down with this ableist, anti-people LTN scheme that's making additional problems for just a hair over half the households who have motor vehicles!

I do think we'd have better odds with provision of some kind of central-but local off-street parking, but a) people would still say it was ruining their lives having to walk / carry things to the car, b) it would be immensely expensive and take years if not decades to get built and c) in many places where would we put it?  Even if putting it (partly) underground there'd need to be space to build it.

chrisonabike wrote:

I do think we'd have better odds with provision of some kind of central-but local off-street parking, but a) people would still say it was ruining their lives having to walk / carry things to the car, b) it would be immensely expensive and take years if not decades to get built and c) in many places where would we put it?  Even if putting it (partly) underground there'd need to be space to build it.

 

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

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qtWjVjj4FMWbu6xH7

(and heading in , but back in time)

https://maps.app.goo.gl/t342UEFXoxof1HeR6

slc wrote:

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...

An excellent plan. In fact the Church Road site has parking spaces for rent from time to time, which are snapped up, though not quite as quickly as the bike hanger spaces that were installed as part of the LTN.