Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum

Bristol Clean Air Zone has 'narrow' focus on replacing cars with cars

//i0.pickpik.com/photos/980/67/594/squirrel-fall-autumn-nature-preview.jpg)

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-clean-air-zone-narrow-6256115

Quote:

A Green scrutiny councillor told a public meeting the scheme would “replace like with a cleaner like” rather than “cleaning up the air fully” when it is introduced next summer.

But senior officers at Bristol City Council said the nature of the Clean Air Zone was the direct result of the Government’s “narrow approach” to funding it.

They said Whitehall would not fund any measures, such as new cycling routes, that did not directly help to drive down NO2 levels in the city to the legal limit or below.

It comes after a member of Bristol Cycling called the Clean Air Zone a “missed opportunity” to end mass car dependency and amounted to millions of pounds being spent on “moving some people from highly polluting vehicles to slightly less polluting vehicles”.

The council announced earlier this month it had won just over £42million of government funding for a range of measures to soften the impact of the Clean Air Zone.

The bulk of that money, £34million, will be used to help businesses and people on low incomes switch to less polluting vehicles.

The rest will mostly be used for schemes such as free bus tickets, free electric bike loans and cycle training to help people switch to public transport and make more journeys by walking or cycling.

A bid for funding to build a new cycle scheme in Old Market was rejected.

A cynic might think that the government isn't fully invested in replacing some steel box journeys with active travel

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
Owd Big 'Ead | 2 years ago
1 like

Pfft.....

Think yourself lucky, at least you have a cycle lane with some kind of segregation, even if pricks in their cars think its somewhere to park their motor.

Up here in Derby the council have decided that to meet it's commitment to Clean Air Zone is to remove one of the very few cycle lanes altogether, as increasing traffic speed is alledgedly the way to reduce pollution!

Go figure.....

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Owd Big 'Ead | 2 years ago
1 like

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Pfft.....

Think yourself lucky, at least you have a cycle lane with some kind of segregation, even if pricks in their cars think its somewhere to park their motor.

Up here in Derby the council have decided that to meet it's commitment to Clean Air Zone is to remove one of the very few cycle lanes altogether, as increasing traffic speed is alledgedly the way to reduce pollution!

Go figure.....

I wish we could hold council members responsible for counter-productive decisions like that. I'd love to see them held responsible for illnesses and deaths caused by their slavish devotion to the personal motor vehicle when the inevitable pollution still doesn't meet legal levels.

Avatar
brooksby | 2 years ago
2 likes

One of the best things Bristol could do is go around and replace all those stupid orange screw-in wands with proper bolted-to-the-road permanent ones surprise...make the 'pop-up' lanes permanent.

I know I go on about it a lot (venting, for my blood pressure) but the Park Row lanes in Bristol are a complete waste.

I can use the entire length from Lower Park Row to the traffic lights at the top of Park Street, going westbound/home, at most once per week.  There is always at least one van parked in them, and usally several.  When the council teams come and replace the wands, it takes no more than a day before the wands have pretty much all disappeared again (are they the new traffic cones, for students?).

Last night there were two cars parked in the section west of the exit from Trenchard Street multi storey; another two in the next section ending at the White Hart pub; and another five in the section from the kebab shop to the traffic lights.

Waited behind one outside the White Hart until they realised I was there.  They moved their car forward and perched it right next to the kebab shop.  I told the driver this was (supposed to be!) a cycle lane, and she apologised but didn't do anything like actually driving off (?).

I moved to the next car, a couple sat there with their engine running, eating their kebabs; as I started to speak, the male passenger just reached over and wound his window up without even acknowledging me.

The next car (also headlights on, engine running) had a woman in it, who made some sort of pantomime about 'oh, so sorry, didn't realise, etc etc'.

The next two cars were empty.

If the council isn't going to actually send traffic wardens along to enforce the no-parking restrictions, and isn't going to replace the temporary plastic wands with proper un-removable things, then the whole exercise is a complete waste of their time and money and simply a box-ticking exercise so they could say they've 'done something'.

I've emailed the Highways Team and the Mayor's Office to complain  3

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
3 likes

Yep - those temporary bollards are a bit crap. Bristol needs some decent permanent active travel infrastructure (for bikes and illegal e-scooters too), but most of the infrastructure that I've seen around Bristol has been poorly thought out and doesn't connect with anything useful. The bits around Temple Meads are fairly useless unless you like stopping and waiting (after pressing a beg button) every 10-20m.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

What seems bizarre to me is the "Whitehall would not fund any measures, such as new cycling routes, that did not directly help to drive down NO2 levels in the city to the legal limit or below".

Now as far as I'm aware, getting people out of cars and onto bikes will definitely drive down NO2, so I can't understand why they won't fund active travel in an effort to bring our air to legal limits unless maybe they and their friends don't stand to make much money from that.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

What seems bizarre to me is the "Whitehall would not fund any measures, such as new cycling routes, that did not directly help to drive down NO2 levels in the city to the legal limit or below".

Plus the fact that they ARE funding Ebike loans makes a mockery of the whole statement anyway. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

Conservative party donors are presumably not so involved in bicycles, hence Whitehall's lack of interest...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
1 like

I'd say that applies to Labour as well - I can't recall them advocating active travel in any meaningful way.

It's all about following the money.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
0 likes

Did you see this morning's Post - the mayor wants to legalise all those privately owned e-scooters.  Apparently there are so many of them being ridden around all the time even though they're illegal, that he thinks it makes sense to just make them legal (presumably, rather than getting Avon & Somerset to actually enforce the law...?).

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
2 likes

I agree with him.  It makes perfect sense rather than the ludicrous concept that they are vehicles and somehow need to be linked to driving licenses, and you getting points on your license for riding one.  Its madness.

The law should have changed already but again Politicians arent really serious about reducing cars on the road.

Avatar
quiff replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
1 like

I agree. I'm no particular fan of e-scooters, but I think the horse has well and truly bolted, and they're just going to have to legalise them. It's interesting the way they're sold - e.g. Wiggle gives a lengthy product description, then right at the end a tiny line saying you can only use it on private land.     

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to quiff | 2 years ago
1 like

I agree. As personal transport, e-scooters are small, light and cheap compared to motor vehicles.

Currently, the law allows motorists to feel entitled to harrass e-scooterists for not being allowed on the roads, even when they might happen to be using a legal version (e.g. VOI). Legalise them and then see how best to deal with the problems they cause. I suspect that the number of KSIs will be fairly small in comparison to those caused by motor vehicles.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
3 likes

Isn't fully? Isn't at all, until they need to prop up a project (HS2) or a friend's business. We already have some electric cars. There's no way that businesses, councils and governments aren't going to suck all the potential money from that having ponied up a fair bit for some R & D and infrastructure in advance. If you're a company and you don't grab the cash, someone else will.

Hopefully (or sadly, if you're tight for cash...) we'll not end up with quite as many private cars.

For the easily triggered I think it's clear that this applies to all governments over the last few decades, all hues.

Latest Comments