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

I have seen long queues on Blackswarth Rd, but they seemed to be dying down towards the end of the last week. I wondered if the queues were essentially due to drivers that that previously turned right onto Beaufort Rd now choosing to turn right at the lights onto Church Rd. Given the volume of traffic coming the other way and the narrow junction, you can imagine the junction capacity dropping from >10 vehicles per green light to 2 or 3.

Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.

Quote:

... a notorious rat run.

Talking of rat runs.

Also from that article:

Quote:

Melissa Topping said "there's a lot of people round here on low incomes who need their cars for school runs and work"

And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just people who drive through, or Conservative councillors in Sunderland or something…).

brooksby wrote:

And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just people who drive through, or Conservative councillors in Sunderland or something…).

Those who have no connection with the area shouldn't be heeded - but the views of those who use a road as a means of getting from A to B, even if they are simply passing through, seem perfectly legitimate to me.

Votes for rat-runs then!

I certainly think councils should be aware of flows.  Of course with cars because "traffic" and space-inefficiency the "why" of that journey is important.  These shouldn't be necessarily judged the same as e.g. pedestrian and cyclist "desire lines".  It's more "we had to drive (as did everyone else did too), so we had no choice but to cut through the residential streets".

That just says "we're in motor dependency", which is hardly news.

There's also the "I'm in the car - shops are 200 metres in that direction, so I'll drive there and back".  We have to decide do we want more of the same (and can we afford it)?

chrisonabike wrote:

Votes for rat-runs then!

I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.

There wiil be some people outside the scheme that are affected other than being denied rat-runs. Google Maps is now routing drivers down Troopers Hill Rd and along Crews Hole Rd rather than Beaufort Rd/Blackswarth Rd. Neither are any better suited for heavy traffic than Beaufort Rd. Crews Hole Rd has long been a traffic nightmare. Troopers Hill Road not so much, but its gradient means that it is very poorly suited.

Yes.  This is the difficult part of change.  Things are ... different!  Of course we want the kind of change that only makes things better, or only affects other people.

We can't - or at least in the UK, won't - get to the "now everything is how it should be" at once.  Some people will be negatively impacted - possibly those who do not live in the affected area or even travel through it.

In fact that is half of the point of transforming our streets.  The other part - making "alternatives" to driving journeys - often can't even start without reducing traffic levels / claiming space back from the motor vehicle.  Because driving is such a space-inefficient form of transport and it suppresses demand for other modes.

Perhaps some of the places where the traffic is now going instead will start petitioning for similar traffic-reducing treatment?

Everywhere will be "difficult" but I recall traffic at rush hours in Bristol from a couple of decades ago and remember thinking it was the heaviest / slowest I'd experienced in the UK...

About 10 years ago, a traffic management scheme with cycle infra was proposed, covering those newly affected areas plus Beaufort Rd. It was not great, really, because it would have been one-way rat-running rather than none, but might have at least cut out the frequent pavement driving. It went though planning and was announced to go ahead, but was then shelved temporarily after objection from drivers to be denied their two-way rat-runs. Temporary became permanant after the money put aside was spent on other things (one of Bristol's many neglected bridges IIRC). 

So we do seem to be getting somewhere.

Try Hanham to Brislington.

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