Having to state the bleeding obvious about 'liveable neighbourhoods'

Very recently, I posted this piece about the controversy surrounding a proposed liveable neighbourhood scheme covering an area in the east of Bristol: Thoughts on the Liveable Neighbourhood 'consultations' in the east of Bristol 30.10.23.

---

For those readers not familiar with the concept, basically it's implementing measures to limit through traffic travelling across a neighbourhood and re-route it elsewhere. The aim is to stop rat-running and make the neighbourhood a pleasanter place in which to live by reducing the volume of traffic passing through residential streets. They're implemented using a variety of methods ranging from physical barriers such as planters in the road, through to electronic surveillance systems monitoring traffic flows in a particular area, issuing fines to those drivers deemed to be not allowed to pass through that area.

The scheme proposed for the east of Bristol runs from Barton Hill in the west all the way over to St. George in the east, bounded by Church Road to the north and the natural barrier of the River Avon to the south. As well as covering a geographically large area, it also takes in a varied demographic ranging from the poorer, working class area of Barton Hill with a high proportion of residents of migrant origin, through to the rapidly gentrifying areas of Redfield and St. George. There are a number of residents living in Barton Hill who work as taxi drivers and the proposals for the liveable neighbourhood as they currently stand would have an adverse impact upon them. It's this area that has seen the most objections being raised to the scheme. On the other hand, up the hill in Redfield and St. George, there's a lot of support for the scheme.

---

Alex Seabrook, a local democracy reporter has recently written a couple of articles on the issues surrounding the proposed liveable neighbourhood. This is the first one he wrote featuring those claiming the consultation on the scheme is flawed: Bristol campaigners want fair say on 'liveable neighbourhood that nobody wants' - Bristol Post | 23.10.23. Presumably in the interests of balance, he wrote this second piece about residents claiming there's solid support for the liveable neighbourhood: Supporters of Bristol liveable neighbourhood plan say changes have ‘plenty of fans’ - Bristol Post | 1.11.23.

I can fully understand why residents would want to live in a neighbourhood that's not plagued with rat-running, where the roads are quieter because there's less traffic and there's less air pollution. I live next to the bypass carrying the A4 around Keynsham town centre and I would love to see a reduction in both the speed and the volume of the traffic passing by. There are proposals to try to address that but, they're deeply flawed and pretty much pointless - I'll be writing more about this at some point.

This may well be seen as controversial but, it's true:

Liveable neighbourhoods are little more than traffic displacement schemes that benefit one set of residents at the expense of those in adjoining areas.

Why is this the case? It's simply because unless there's a properly thought out and implemented strategy to reduce overall traffic levels across not just the city, but the surrounding region, all a liveable neighbourhood scheme is going to achieve is shifting vehicles from one set of roads to another.

We live in a largely car dependent society, made more so by decades of planning policies assuming near universal car ownership and hence, allowing suburbs to sprawl in the way they have done. Coupled with an utterly shit public transport system across Bristol and the surrounding region, both bus and train, many people have little option but to drive. It's not that they want to, it's they they have to in order to get to work, do the shopping and have any kind of leisure.

Yet again, I'm having to state the bleeding obvious. Unless there's a massive boost to public transport across the Bristol region and planning policy is adjusted in a way that reduces unnecessary vehicle journeys, all liveable neighbourhood schemes are going to achieve is the displacement of traffic, not its reduction. In the longer term, we need an honest conversation about how can we live and work in such a way that people are not wasting hours every day stuck behind the wheel. These are issues that I started to address in the latter half of this piece: The future of movement on a finite planet 21.2.23:

It's going to be a tough call because the system we live under is geared towards an assumption of near universal car ownership. From housing through to employment, things are structured in such as way that the majority of the population have no choice but to drive, otherwise they'd be leading very limited lives. Because it feels like we're locked into a system that's structured in such a way that it's difficult to escape from it and live in a more sane and sustainable way, the majority of people feel there's no option but to keep their heads down and make the best they can of things as they are. It's almost like Stockholm Syndrome where people who can see no alternative identify with the system, even though it's ultimately dragging all of us towards a cliff edge. Also, the enormity of the task of pretty much completely reconfiguring the way we live is such a daunting prospect and would involve so much upheaval, people understandably don't want to think about it.

I'm feeling that I'm having to repeat this over and over again until at some point, it starts to sink in. The fact that the row over liveable neighbourhoods has turned into a toxic culture war is making it even harder to have any kind of rational discussion. It really does feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall sometimes, as you may gather from reading though the posts I've written here: Posts on movement.