How hard is for 'Liveable Neighbourhood' advocates to grasp a very simple concept?

I was checking the headlines in the local news media yesterday (18.7), and found this piece relating to the controversy over the east Bristol 'Liveable Neighbourhood': Hope that plans to close off east Bristol roads could reduce speeding and prevent crashes - Alex Seabrook | Bristol Post | 18.7.23. Basically, it's a series of interviews with residents in the St. George area who support the implementation of the scheme. It should be noted that the level of support for this scheme fluctuates across the area it will cover. While the residents in the gentrified streets of St. George may well be in favour of the scheme, down the hill towards the city centre in Barton Hill, a lot of residents are opposed to it. To say the above article in the Bristol Post is one sided is an understatement! All the 'reporter' in question had to do was take a fifteen minute walk down the road to Barton Hill to talk to residents there about the scheme, and he might have come up with a balanced piece of journalism. Suffice to say, when people read the Bristol Post article, they can be forgiven for thinking that an agenda is being pushed.

Disclosure time... I live in Keynsham, a town between the cities of Bristol and Bath. I live right next to the bypass that carries traffic on the A4 around the town centre. I'm sitting here typing up this post with the window ajar to get some fresh air and the noise of the passing traffic is pretty constant. I'd love it if the volume of traffic thundering along the A4 could be reduced so I could get some peace and quiet. In some ways, I could possibly sympathise with residents in inner suburban areas of Bristol who want to see a reduction of traffic and an end to rat running through the side streets. However, this sentiment has to be qualified with a number of buts, pretty big ones at that...

So called 'Liveable Neighbourhoods' can only work if there's an overall reduction in the volume of traffic on the roads across the whole of Bristol and beyond.

If there's no reduction in the overall volume of traffic, all a 'Liveable Neighbourhood' will achieve is shifting traffic from one location to another, subjecting neighbouring areas to even greater levels of traffic.

I've lost count of the number of times I've had to state the above, blatantly obvious truth. To say I'm getting pissed off with tone deaf 'Liveable Neighbourhood' advocates, who should know better, sidestepping this obvious truth is an understatement.

Is this what Bristol City Council and Sustrans mean by 'travel challenge'? Having to wade through pedestrian subways that flood after heavy rain?

Yes, I am aware of this 'initiative' that supposedly sets out to encourage people to leave the car at home and consider alternative ways of getting around the city: Big Bristol Travel Challenge. This is my response to what to all intents and purposes is a pointless gimmick: Are Bristol City Council and Sustrans taking the piss? 27.6.23. This is part of what I said in this piece:

If Bristol City Council are genuinely serious about encouraging more people to walk and cycle, they need to dip their hands in their pockets and spend some serious money on making sure that walking and cycling around Bristol are attractive and safe options. A combination of broken, uneven pavements, pedestrian subways that flood after heavy rain and potholed roads, mean that walking and cycling around the city are unattractive and often, unsafe options.

So, with a pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that leaves a lot to be desired plus a public transport network that’s far from adequate, what are the public supposed to make of the Big Bristol Travel Challenge? Judging by the comments after the post promoting this gimmick on the Bristol City Council Facebook page, the general sentiment is one of derision. Deservedly so in our opinion.

There are other issues to consider, one being how we can reconfigure our cities to reduce the number of car journeys without impinging on people's freedom. Issues that I dealt with at some length in this post: More thoughts on movement… 29.6.23. Rather than re-hashing all of the arguments I made, I would urge you to read this post, if only to put things into some kind of context. Suffice to say that there are no easy answers to the complex range of issues involved. However, the more I think about things, the more inclined I am towards the notion that cities, far from being allowed to expand, need to be shrunk and a move back to the smaller towns encouraged. That would have to be in conjunction with a complete re-orientation of society towards a more localised, democratically accountable, physically sustainable and spiritually satisfying way of life.

Finding any answers is being made much harder by the accusations of 'conspiracy theory' that are being thrown at those expressing concerns about the impact of the proposed 'Liveable Neighbourhood' scheme. Suffice to say there are some people involved in this 'discussion' who need to take a few steps back, look at the bigger picture, realise how complex the issues are and then engage with all the voices in the debate.

The problem is that the kind of publications these people write for and the circles they mix in mitigate against any move towards an open and honest debate about the complex issues involved. That's because of an agenda that's being pushed. One that's highlighted in no uncertain terms by The Bristolian: WHO’S RIGHT? THE CABLE, DAVOS AND LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS. It's good to know that the rebellious spirit of Bristol lives on:) That gives me a glimmer of hope that the dystopian future that's being planned for the city can be stopped and the damage done so far can be reversed.