Bristol Live readerS are unsurprised to hear that confusing language and contradictory figures have been highlighted as major failings in the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood (LTN) trial, as the council prepares for a second pilot in the south of the city.
Research found Bristol City Council staff often used jargon when explaining proposals -- at one point describing a bollard as a "modal filter" -- leaving many Barton Hill residents unsure what the scheme actually involved. Conflicting statistics in official documents also damaged trust, researchers said.
A review by a council-employed public health specialist criticised "vague feedback responses" and the lack of clear links between public input and changes to plans. Outreach work was also carried out too close to implementation to be effective, the report said.
The East Bristol scheme, covering Barton Hill, Redfield and St George, used bollards, planters and bus gates to restrict through-traffic and encourage walking and cycling. While some welcomed safer streets, others objected to the changes.
The review did find positives -- council staff engaged with residents over two years using videos, maps and travel workshops, and translated materials into multiple languages. But it warned that disability groups and emergency services need to be consulted earlier to avoid frustration.
The next trial, the South Bristol LTN, will cover Windmill Hill, Bedminster, Southville and Ashton Vale. Residents will be asked for feedback on proposals aimed at tackling speeding, parking problems and poor cycle safety.
Commenter Asmodeus says: "In other words, it was poorly planned in terms of communities it should serve and wasn't translated out of jargonese. Additionally, public consultation was held without adequate time for results to filter through, as though it was an afterthought for decisions already made. Lots of lessons for South Bristol, where even more communities are being pulled into the proposed scheme."
TalbotHill thinks: "The Councillors responsible for this need to look at the areas affected without their rose tinted glasses on. They also need to look outside of the box. Did they honestly think this would only affect the roads within the scheme area? Ask the people of Brislington and St Anne's on one side and Kingswood on the other!"
HanhamHeights replies: "The huge traffic increase in Brislington and Kingswood hasn't actually happened. I drive those roads constantly, and the only recent gridlock was caused by the temporary roadworks at Magpie Bottom, which has nothing to do with the scheme. The roads around the LTN are generally fine, apart from the Blackswarth Road junction which has always been a nightmare because of the traffic light phasing."
Redfieldbs agrees: "A massive improvement would be to make Chalks Road and Blackswarth Road's light separate so that cars turning right coming out of Blackswarth Road would not block any cars going straight over while cars coming from Chalks block the turn right. This is the cause of massive tailbacks on Blackswarth at all hours with a large amount of increased pollution right outside St Patrick's school."
Danbristol writes: "Communication is not the issue, these initiatives are fundamentally flawed. The area within the isolated area might receive some benefits, but as there is no consideration on how it affects the borders it has a net negative. Traffic and pollution is worse, making it harder on the rest of Bristol for one of three routes from the east. It also makes it harder for the residents that want to leave the area."
NathF agrees: There are more negatives than benefits unless you live in Beaufort Road. But for the majority of people there are more negatives than positives."
HanhamHeights retorts: "The real issue is people demanding the freedom to drive through and pollute someone else's residential street just to save 30 seconds on your own journey. These schemes are about reclaiming streets for the people who actually live there. Your core claim that traffic and pollution on the boundary roads are worse is also factually incorrect. Some car journeys for residents are now a minute or two longer. That's the entire trade-off: a minor inconvenience for drivers in exchange for a massive, permanent improvement in safety, noise, and air quality for the community. It's a trade-off worth making every time.
"The goal of an LTN has never been to stop people owning cars, it's to stop residential streets from being used as dangerous, polluted rat-runs. There is zero hypocrisy in owning a car and also wanting your neighbourhood to be safer."
Dcswf complains: "Greens always want to handcuff the way we all live- because they want to. "'Don't the plebs realise it's for their own benefit!'"