Congestion charge case

Bristol’s horrendous traffic continues to lower our health, wellbeing and quality of life. This will continue to damage present and future generations if we don’t do something soon that is effective. I’m therefore glad that Bristol's Mayor George Ferguson has not ruled out introducing a congestion charge for the city (see here and here).

Bristol’s transport problems are serious: every day too many vehicles are trying to use local roads; there are very limited possibilities for building more roads and in any case more roads bring more traffic and more damage; drivers spend half their time crawling in jammed traffic; congestion is costing business very large amounts of money; traffic congestion generates more air pollution and produces more climate change causing carbon emissions; congestion causes frustration and raises stress levels.

A congestion charge would ideally try to achieve: significantly reduced traffic in the most congested areas; similarly reduced delays; shorter journey times; reliable delivery times; the saving of many hours of journey time; the raising of large sums of money for re-investment in transport, especially public transport; switching to sustainable transport modes; a boost for public transport use; a system that pays for itself over time.

Lessons from London’s congestion charge should encourage us. Boris would have got rid of it altogether if it did not have merit. Congestion and traffic levels there would be worse without it. Numbers of cars and car movements would be even higher. Movements of buses, coaches and taxis would be more resticted. Tens of thousands fewer bus passengers would not enter the charge zone during the morning peak. Bus reliability and journey times would be worse and the time passengers wait at bus stops would be longer. Disruption on bus routes due to traffic would be worse.

We clearly have a serious problem in Bristol. We need to both provide a disincentive to car use and raise money to improve the public transport and other alternatives. If the details of any congestion charge scheme for Bristol are right, the decision making processes are fair and we can implement the scheme properly then I'm strongly in favour.

Speed support

More people have had their say on proposals for the introduction of 20mph speed limits across Bristol. So far about half of people who have shared their views...which would see the reduced speed limits in place in central Bristol within a year – were in favour of proposals as they stand, while another 20 to 25 per cent have been said to agree to the scheme in principle but wanted to find out more. Here's a copy of my online comment on this story, which attracted a number of 'its a fix' type views which in turn generated this response from Tiny_Steve and from me:



Tiny_Steve - "It's obvious that the Council must have manipulated the figures and the people speaking to the Post were hired stooges. As everyone knows, these comment pages are the only true barometer of the opinions of right-thinking Bristolians. Especially those who have nothing to do all day but sit looking at the Post's website."
______________________________

Well said Tiny_Steve. And it could not possibly be the case that 20mph limits are a reasonably sensible move that therefore has a lot of public support could it. After all the findings of this current exercise aren't at all in line with the British Social Attitudes Survey run for the Department of Transport which found ' "the majority (71 per cent) of respondents were in favour or strongly in favour of speed limits of 20 mph in residential streets"...only 15% were against', or the University of the West of England's review which found ' "there are substantial majorities disapproving of breaking the speed limit, supporting reductions in speed limits including local limits of 20mph"...on residential streets, 76% of people are in favour of having speed limits of 20mph'. And there are no further examples of public opinion eg in York, Oxord and Islington supporting 20mph limits here - http://tinyurl.com/8krqfvq

And its obvious that a candidate stongly opposing 20mph limits will become the first elected Mayor of Bristol and stop this kick in the teeth for drivers...er...isn't it??

Carbon killer

Air pollution causes the premature death of tens of thousands of people in the UK every year. Toxic carbon monoxide gas is one of the problem pollutants.

The way that even low levels of carbon monoxide can be fatal, by disrupting the heart's rhythm, has been unravelled by researchers in Leeds.

They found that levels common in heavy traffic could affect the way the heart resets itself after every beat.
...study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine...

Full story here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19093308

More on UK air pollution issues here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/28/uk-cities-ban-polluting-traffic and here http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news/air-quality-a-follow-up-report/

Road reason

A blanket 20mph speed limit on all of Bristol’s residential streets will be in place by 2015 (full story and debate here).This is a very good decision. For me the case for 20mph limits is that residential roads are for living not driving in. See here for why 20mph - http://tinyurl.com/bptjkoh
Many of the Mayoral candidates have been advocating it and are backing the decision because they know that its popular with the public. In the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey 71% of people asked were in favour of 20mph speed limits on residential roads - http://tinyurl.com/cx2r2ca.

Some persist in saying that here is no logical or proven reason for 20mph limits in residential areas  but in fact there's plenty of research around. See this analysis of the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (http://tinyurl.com/bqbdogs) for instance. Those opposing 20 mph limits seem to be driven by something other than the evidence and reasoning upon it - see the debate on this story on The Post website here - with even more here - for plenty of examples of abuse, avoidance, denial, misinformation and misunderstanding...

Some repeat myths in their comments eg saying that air pollution would be worsened. Actually 20mph limits will NOT increase air pollution, as shown here  http://tinyurl.com/7gp2j89 and are a key feature of a more sustainable approach to urban living. The key is that the streets involved in this decision are residential streets ie people live there. Living there need not and most often does not exclude driving there of course but lets not forget that cyclists and pedestrians and not just motorised vehicles use roads and that all sorts of community activities can and should happen on residential streets if they are safe enough - and this brings me to another reason why I say streets are for living (by which I meant primarily for living) and that is that if the speed limit is 20 mph, in the unfortuneate event of a collision the people involved are much more likely to live than to die.

Some still argue that roads/streets, even residential ones, are primarily for cars and not pedestrians, cyclists and a range of activities, potentially. However, many of the roads/streets in Bristol were there long before cars were owned and used on a widespread basis and some go back even before the invention of the car. Mass car ownership did not take off in the UK until the 1950's and many things have happened on the roads/streets before and since. A good proportion of Bristol's roads/streets were never designed for cars. Roads are simply thoroughfares, routes, or ways on land from place to place - and in residential areas and in cities serve a wider purpose, including easement. Even where they were/are specially designed for car use why should we not choose, with general agreement, to adjust and manage that, especially in residential areas, so that the balance favours human beings not motorised machines running at a speed likely to kill or cause serious injury? See http://tinyurl.com/2vd7pq and also http://tinyurl.com/cgphzz7.

Others say introducing 20mph limits is a waste of money, can't be enforced and everyone will ignore it. They seem to have forgotten the evidence eg from RoSPA on their effectiveness. 20mph limits have saved lives where they have been introduced in Hull, London and elsewhere. See here. No-one has been able to dispute this evidence in the two lengthy online debates I've taken part in.

Speeding = stupid

Interesting how people try to defend speeding when news stories such as this one (Rise in deaths on Bristol's roads) appear - just look at some of the online comments. Of course we should want everyone - all child and adult pedestrians, all cyclists - to use good road sense but no-one should defend speeding or other irrresponsible forms of driving, not least because it contributes to one in every four deaths as a result road collisions (see RoSPA link below). Speeding is unacceptable, period - it is an avoidable cause of death and serious injury if people show some responsibility.

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 13% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death. This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/default.aspx

Parking proposal

Plenty of whinges but not much in the way of constructive suggestions from commenters on this story 'Bristol businesses facing workplace parking levy'. Bristol's transport system has large and longstanding problems, such as from congestion and pollution. It costs city dwellers and workers a lot in money, health and environmental terms. What solutions do the whinging commenters propose?

For me the area shown in the map (above left) showing two possible boundaries for the workplace parking levy scheme is far too small and has many inconsistencies - and the city's proposals for 'sustainable' transport and 'green' taxes (if indeed they meet the proper definition of sustainable and green) are often too timid, unintegrated and lacking in coherence. A properly stategic approach is what is needed, so that all council policies pull in the same direction.

Safer speed

Excellent news here: Bristol's residential roads to have blanket 20mph speed limit. At 20mph a pedestrian knocked over stands a greater than 90% chance of surviving. At 40mph they stand a 90% chance of dying! When traffic is slowed down to 20 mph, there is a 70 per cent drop in accidents to child pedestrians. A 20 mph speed limit on residential roads therefore makes a great deal of sense, so well done to all those who have brought this decision about. I hope all drivers will be responsible and adjust their speeds when they see the signs. See here for much more on the case for 20mph where people live.

Roads research?

No need to be so tentative - experimenting like this is a great idea. We should be experimenting with ideas more.

CARS could be banned from some of Bristol's roads to make way for cyclists on one day each week, an MP has suggested.

Kerry McCarthy said the idea had come from the Colombian ambassador, whom she had met as part of her work as a shadow foreign minister....

Ms McCarthy stressed that if the idea was transferred to Bristol there would need to be extensive consultation with residents and businesses.

"In Columbia, where it happens, it is in the context that some people are very nervous about cycling in the city centre with all the traffic," she said.

"Perhaps the idea could be tried in Bristol as a bit of an experiment.

"I wasn't putting it forward as a formal proposal, but I thought it was something that was worth looking at.... (full story)

Car crap

More than 15,000 motorists a year are caught jumping red lights in Bristol, it has been revealed.

The Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership says a total of 15,500 drivers and motorcyclists were caught on camera going through red traffic lights last year...(more here).

No surprise here. In fact the figure is very likely to be much higher than 15,500 a year - this is only those drivers that have been seen and successfully photographed. Anyone who drives around Bristol a bit, as I do, knows that you dont have to be out on the road for long on any one day before you see all sorts of driving offences and breaches of the Highway Code: overtaking on the inside, weaving from lane to lane, through red lights, driving very close behind you, sudden and sharp braking, sudden acceleration, through zebra crossings when people are waiting to cross or are still on the crossing, generally not allowing space and time to pedestrians and bikes, irresponsible parking eg on double yellow lines and on corners, general speeding -including from one set of red lights to another...Many of these people must have more money than sense because they are increasing their chances of a very costly - and more serious - accident and wasting away their fuel with grossly inefficient driving - some of these may be the first to moan about fuel prices too!   

Crystal ball forecasting

60,000 new jobs from the new transport plans in and around Bristol?? Story here. This will sound like a gross exaggeration to many people. On what basis have they made this claim exactly? Crystal ball gazing? This is an argument technique many use to try to justify schemes, such as new roads, that many local people have concerns about. Chief executive of Bristol Airport and transport lead for the Local Enterprise Partnership Robert Sinclair say they believe this is the figure but of course they have an interest in talking up developments they favour - and the only people backing them up in the report are business and political figures who have the same interest, so they add no weight to the claim at all. So, all we are left with is a jobs figure a few say they believe in and no substance.

Bristol: Carbon City

Really Cllr Kent is deluded - he blows his trumpet very loudly indeed when he says Bristol will get the transport system it deserves. Cllrs love it when they can announce they've got money for something almost no matter what it is. For a start building a new road will ultimately add to the congestion and pollution existing now at high levels - its already very costly to business in pounds and costly to people in health and the environment in lost quality and quantity. Bus Rapid Transit is often not the best technology - and persistently asking just a few questions at public meetings on BRT reveals environmental decision making 'systems' that are simply not joined up thinking. Whatever happened to building a low carbon city with a high quality of life for all, the aim of Bristol Green Capital?

See http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/15/bristol-to-finally-get-transport-system-it-deserves-15367/

Eco-Eddy??

Cllr Richard Eddy says he sympathises with '...the desire to protect our precious countryside from major development ' (here **). Why then does he favour constructing the South Bristol Link Road through it, stressing that he is a 'long-standing supporter of getting it finished' (see here)? Obviously protecting the countryside is not that high on his agenda - and mostly features in his world when seeking public political advantage with greenspeak!

Or is this more of Bristol Tory Cllr Eddy's special kind of 'logic'...the kind that allows him to say that the link road will 'ease congestion'(see here), despite all the weight of research evidence and experience for decades that shows building roads encourages car use which quickly fills them up to the point of congestion.

________________________________________________

**(Great letter on countryside protection from James Burden and Des Baker on the same page by the way - go to the link they give for more http://www.cpre.org.uk/ )

Five a day

Very informative feature on the BBC website showing that on average from 1999 to 2010 five people were killed on the roads every day (see map of road deaths in the Bristol area for this period - click to enlarge). The time lapse maps are really striking.

Britain has one of the best records in the world for road casualties. However, hundreds [more like thousands] still die on the roads every year. In 2010, the police recorded 1,850 deaths, 22,660 people seriously injured and 184,138 who received light injuries.

About this data:

Using official data recorded by police in Great Britain between 1999 and 2010, we have plotted every road collision in which someone died. In all, 36,371 fatalities are marked on this interactive map [click link to BBC site bottom of this post]. You will also find partial data for Northern Ireland, for 2004-2009.

Detailed information about each crash is recorded by the police at the scene. It is subsequently transferred onto a computer database. This is available to researchers from the Economic and Social Data Service. As with any large collection of data, there will be errors and omissions that occur in this process and some of these will be found in this map. The BBC apologises for any distress or offence that may be caused by the inclusion of these errors.

If you find any errors, please use the feedback form below and let us know. We will endeavour to correct them where possible.

Feedback: Road casualties feature

Answers to some of your frequently asked questions are here.

BBC News - Every death on every road in Great Britain 1999-2010

South Bristol link road bulldozed through (along with many others)

The Treasury neatly side-stepped a year's work by experts, campaigners and civil servants on 45 local transport projects in the DfT's 'development pool'...as the Chancellor announced he was providing funding for all 45 schemes and gave the go-ahead to the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road to grab headlines...

...As well as the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road, the go-ahead was also given to the Lincoln Eastern Bypass, the A164 Humber Bridge to Beverley, and the A43 Corby Link Road...

We are all justifiably angry as ourselves, the Kingskerswell Alliance and Transport for Greater Bristol had hired consultants to produce an evidence-based response to the funding bids showing major flaws in the plans. Instead it appears the schemes have been bulldozed through to allow the Chancellor to do some headline grabbing posturing today.

Analysis of the Kingskerswell Bypass showed that it would simply move traffic jams further down the road. It would also be environmentally devastating, trashing the habitats of rare bats, birds and newts. The South Bristol Link Road will at best shave just 2 minutes off journey times, and passes through Common Land and the green belt.

This is unlikely to be the end of the road for the campaigns as there are grounds for legal challenges now, and later there will most likely be protests.

Roads blog Campaign for Better Transport

Opposing the 'South Bristol Link' (ring road)

Passing on details of this group and campaign (campaign postcards are now available I think): For the past five years, Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance has opposed the West of England Partnership's proposal to build a new road through South Bristol and its greenbelt. A previous application to build a road by North Somerset was turned down by the Government in 2002 as 'poor value for money'. As originally proposed in 2006, the road was seen as completion of the Ring Road, a dual carriageway running between Long Ashton through South Bristol to link up with the existing Ring Road at Hicks Gate. The Council decided to drop Stage 3 (Hartcliffe to Hicks Gate) due to strong local opposition. The road was renamed the 'South Bristol Link' and a Bus Rapid Transit has been added. The SBL is now being sold as an essential part of a wider BRT network. We continue to oppose the current scheme.

On 9th Sept 2011, the Partnership (four local councils) is applying for funding to the Department for Transport (DfT) for this £45m scheme along with BRT2 (Long Ashton P and R to Cabot Circus) and BRT3 (Northern fringe to Hengrove). TfGB has produced postcards addressed to Norman Baker, Under-Secretary of State for Transport for members of the public to use to object to SBL (deadline 7th October). You can get postcards and further information from pip_sheard@hotmail.co.uk. On the campaigns page is a four page briefing outlining details of the current scheme and why we believe the combined road and Bus Rapid Transit is poor public transport value for money and environmentally damaging and should be rejected by the DfT.

Transport for Greater Bristol

Optimism on sorting Bristol's transport problems

The Bristol Evening Post says 'Bristol's metro is not as far off track as you might think'. I hope they are right and can help build up momentum for change on this issue. As many of my blog posts show I'm in favour of a Greater Bristol Integrated Transport Authority that implements a sustainable transport plan. History points to lack of agreement and cooperation between the local authorities though. If agreement and cooperation is reached they still need to get the process of decision making right: exploring the situation; formulating problems, opportunities and systems of interest; identifying feasible and desirable changes; taking actions; and re-exploring etc as appropriate. They need to fully involve as wide a range of people as possible right from the start, ensure good quality, comprehensive information is widely disseminated, get genuine cross-party and cross-organisational cooperation, agree the right goals, get finances sorted, assess technologies fairly and broadly, find a combination of technical, behavioural and socio-economic change that will consistently take us in a firmly sustainable direction... Its nothing like as straightforward and obvious as this Post report - which has a strong technocratic, techno-optimist slant - suggests.

BBC News - Lollipop patrols axed by council

What! Lollipop patrols protect our kids and in any case cost only a very small amount of money. Lollipop men and women aren't exactly overpaid - get rid of the Chief Executives on extortion salaries and stop using all those consultants that cost a fortune instead! I hope this suggestion is not made in Bristol or elsewhere.

BBC News - Lollipop patrols axed by council

With councils in England facing big cuts to their funding from central government, some jobs and services are likely to be axed.
The need to save money has led to Suffolk County Council to propose getting rid of its lollipop men and women to save £174,000, a move that's upset some parents.

A BIKER travelling at 109mph on the Portway and a car driver doing 144mph were among 113,000 people caught speeding last year in the Avon and Somerset police force area.

People simply should not be speeding. In my view fines should be heftier, punishments tougher and rehabiliation through driver education, training and re-testing compulsory before its legal for persistent speeders to return to driving. You dont have to be out on the roads for long to see irresponsible and poor driving so we should be installing more safety cameras, which after all only contribute to enforcing the law.

A BIKER travelling at 109mph on the Portway and a car driver doing 144mph were among 113,000 people caught speeding last year in the Avon and Somerset police force area.

The figures...released by Avon and Somerset police under the Freedom of Information Act. They show that 113,255 motorists were caught by speed cameras in the force area between April 2009 and March this year.

Charles: Cabot [Carbon] Circus

Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Cabot Circus shopping centre the other day to launch an 'environmental/sustainability' initiative. The claims that were made in local newspaper and tv reports about the 'green' credentials of Cabot Circus simply dont stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. The claims show just how weak and loose mainstream 'environmental/sustainability/green' thinking, standards and practices currently are...

THE Cabot Circus shopping centre had its first royal visitors yesterday, but the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were not in the city for a bit of retail therapy – they were here to paint the town green.

...James Bailey, Cabot Circus centre manager stated,

"As a centre, we have a strong track record of sustainability, having been recognised as the UK's first retail project of its kind to achieve the highest rating of 'excellent' by the Building Research Establishment.

"Environmental considerations have always been integral to Cabot Circus – from the overall design philosophy and integration with the existing city centre, to waste minimisation and use of energy and water efficiency features."

The distinctive energy-efficient domed roofing of Cabot Circus even seemed to get the thumbs-up from the Prince, who is known to often have unequivocal opinions on modern architecture...

If Cabot Circus is about 'green' Bristol and the West where does it prominently feature local and regional products? If it's consistent with Bristol’s green city/capital ambition why the focus on driving to the huge car park (pictured top left) and shops that import products from all over the world? Where are the genuinely green products and businesses? Why are plastic bags given out left right and centre?? Why no mention of how it has increased Bristol's already very large and unsustainable carbon footprint, both directly and indirectly? Cabot Circus is all about the celebration and advocacy of mass consumerism, the belief that the more we consume the better off we are, something that is remarkable in these pretty unprecedented times of credit crunch, economic downturn, resource depletion and environmental degradation.

The focus of Cabot Circus is much more global economy than local economy, much more about a small number of people getting rich than local people meeting their needs. Debt-funded mass consumption around the globe is causing extremely serious and urgent economic and environmental problems. So what have we done in Bristol? Build a massive shopping centre, including one of Europes biggest car parks!! Mass consumerist societies eat up resources (sparking oil price rises) like there is no tomorrow and spew out vast amounts of climate change causing carbon and very large amounts of all kinds of wastes

Would it not have been much more valuable to individuals, neighbourhoods and communities in Bristol to get together a proper strategy to maintain and develop shops, services and jobs in each locality? We need development to be localised. Cabot Circus is a million miles from local production for local needs yet this is the pattern of development we need for a happier, healthier, fairer, greener and more convivial city!

Bristol Lib Dem cuts in support for public transport

FERRY and rail services will be affected by one of the biggest shake-ups of taxpayer-funded public transport Bristol has seen.

Bristol City Council is putting all of its subsidised transport services out to tender from next month, inviting companies to bid for the right to run them.

The Evening Post revealed how this would affect local bus services last week, but it will also affect a number of ferry and rail services that serve the city.

The council part-funds the Bristol Ferry Boat Company weekday commuter service between Cascade Steps and Hotwells Road; the cross-harbour ferry between the ss Great Britain and Porto Quay; and the Severn Beach rail line between Severn Beach and Temple Meads...

Bristol's transport boss Cllr Gary Hopkins says this not about cuts. The Post story says the council would like to cut its support for train, ferry and bus services by this move. Something's got to give somewhere if support is cut, so does Cllr Hopkins want to correct his statement or does he not bother with logic much??

Government at all levels should ensure the incentives are right for all modes of transport and should ensure that the price we all pay for travelling reflects its total net cost ie accounting for external costs and benefits as well as private costs and benefits. This would mean that clean, efficient and safer, more sustainable transport would be cheapest, so improving the incentives to use it and putting all transport on a rational footing. As it is now dirty, unhealthy, unsafe, inefficient transport modes like cars and lorries are wrongly given priority.