Bristol Live readers have been discussing the new traffic measures rolling out in East Bristol as part of the city’s ‘liveable neighbourhood’ initiative. With a focus on discouraging the use of residential streets for cut-throughs, the scheme will introduce new bus gates, bollards, and one-way systems spanning Barton Hill, Redfield, and St George.
Despite some delays, the phased implementation is set to kick-off from October 28 and continues through to January 2025.
Residents can expect the council to seek their input on the trial stages, allowing for refinements ahead of confirming a fixed road layout. Championing the project, Councillor Ed Plowden articulated its central vision – to mould safer, healthier, and greener local spaces by mediating street space between transport and pedestrian needs.
This move targets prevalent issues such as air quality, traffic danger, and enhancing communal venues.
One reader, Melimoonshine had this to say: “Despite the fact it is in breach of the Equalities Act 2010 regarding disability access issues. ‘Commenting once it’s in place’ or sending an email (as is what’s being offered by LN team) being stuck unable to get home in my disabled vehicle really is too severe to be left to deal with. BCC and their disability discrimination in full flow.”
Crimmo adds: “Funny that the council can always find money to hit the motorist but cannot find any for social care!”
KaptainVon believes: “The problem with this sort of thing is that it not only fails to address the wider issues but also may exacerbate them. Putting more vehicles onto fewer roads leads to congestion and that creates more pollution. Pollution is no respecter of bus gates and no entry signs so will continue to affect even those streets that are turned into LTNs especially if surrounding streets are gridlocked and in turn will increase pollution exposure for anyone resident on or using the latter.
“Unfortunately, this putting more into less has pretty much been the policy in Bristol for the last fifty or more years and has resulted in the Catch-22 of congestion delays public transport but drivers are unwilling to use public transport as there is not enough of it to meet needs if only 20% of drivers switched and what there is, is delayed by congestion. Meanwhile there has been an utter failure to create a decent overground public transport system whilst spending millions on pie in the sky ideas which have no hope of coming to fruition or which in the case of Metrobus which could have been a partial solution, just end up as another bus route getting caught in congestion. Until Bristol gets investment in a sensible, reasonably priced and efficient public transport system, people are not going to leave their cars at home and closing off areas will just keep adding to the underlying cause.”
HanhamHeights disagrees: “This whole comment misunderstands how traffic actually works. The evidence from implemented LTNs shows they reduce overall traffic levels through ‘traffic evaporation’ – when some roads are closed, a significant portion of car journeys simply disappear rather than rerouting. This is documented in numerous studies. Regarding pollution: Real-world measurements from LTNs show NO2 levels typically decrease both within and around the schemes. The idea that they increase pollution by creating gridlock isn’t supported by the data – studies show minimal to no impact on main road journey times. The argument about public transport being a prerequisite for reducing car dependency gets things backwards. Places that successfully transformed their transport systems, like Ghent and Waltham Forest, used LTNs and similar measures as a first step. They created the conditions that made public transport more viable by reducing car dominance first. Waiting for perfect public transport before taking any action to reduce car dependency is a recipe for permanent gridlock. The evidence is clear: LTNs work as part of the solution, reducing overall traffic while improving air quality and safety. These aren’t theoretical predictions – they’re measured outcomes from schemes already implemented.”
Junius1 joins in with: “This evidence is particularly from London, where congestion and ULEZ charges may also affect the outcome of ‘evaporating’ traffic in central London LTNs.”
God47 says: “I’ve never felt a need to drive in Bristol . It’s so small that you can walk to most places. Buses everywhere. But I do live in the city centre, like all normal people should.”
TalbotHill writes: “Never mind Bus Gates in Avonvale Road, they need to look at the Private Hire Taxis with Gloucestershire Licence Plates that park on the pavements. Also, there are the caravans and converted lorries encamped on Marsh Lane and Netham Road, are they going to be moved or will they be allowed to stay?”
PieMan01 adds: “‘In the coming year, the council plans to gather public opinion on the trial, with the aim of identifying potential modifications before implementing a permanent layout.’ They have no intention of listening to what the public says. Yes I know they’re making it permanent anyway, but if the public opinion in Bristol, was nobody wanted what they are “proposing”, the Council would still carry on regardless. The Council don’t care what the people want.”
Fadinging writes: “Money should be spent on filling potholes. Some place around the country are starting to rip them out as its giving problems for emergency services.”
Covid-51 thinks: “Just another cash cow bus gate, in my opinion. It’ll do nothing to congestion, as people will simply take other rat-run routes. They just don’t work.”
So do you have faith in these new liveable neighbourhoods? Let us know HERE or in the comments below.