Bristol - Pictures show exactly how Park Street will change after major transformation

This chap needs to go back for a physics refresher.  Is traffic an incompressible fluid ("it will just go elsewhere") or not ("there will be more traffic elsewhere" - presumably on another street which is "already congested")?

Or is it failure to understand "if the previous 'solution' caused the problem to recur, that's probably not the 'solution'"?

"We had a couple of trees, but after a while they were full of squirrels - in fact they were running about and causing problems.  So we added some trees and installed more dreys.  Now there seem to be a lot more squirrels.  But the idea to fence off some of the trees and remove dreys is creating a problem, it just moves the squirrels elsewhere. To fix it we clearly need more squirrel capacity again, that'll fix things forever!"

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

“Traffic flows like water. Once you start stopping it up, it then moves into random directions."

Hang about - when did water start moving in 'random directions'? I was under the impression it generally* followed the dictates of gravity.

[* Things like wicking and siphoning excepted.]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

 “Traffic doesn’t work like water.

“There’s been lots of literature that shows if you restrict through-traffic, then traffic just evaporates.”

So does water, if you give it long enough.

mdavidford wrote:

Hang about - when did water start moving in 'random directions'?

1785, or 1827 - in terms of observation. Although I believe the theory has existed for a long time.

Is that like when cars are forced to veer violently across the road by invisible cyclists?

It's the invisible * motions of cyclists "wobbling across the road" that causes otherwise careful and competent drivers to randomly drive into them.

*  Only visible in defence accounts in court.

Excellent - and a pity the Beeb didn't quote more.  (At least they got in his rejoinder though).

Don't forget folks - "Under the plans cars will still be able to access the street via side roads but will not be able to drive from end to end."

Some people * don't want the slightest change to the motoring status quo.  Even while saying "there are problems, and we want to address them".  And even where it may ultimately benefit everyone including those who use cars sometimes.

* Somehow - and it might be partial road.cc reporting - but somehow it always seem to be more often the Conservatives (joined here by the Liberals).  Although elsewhere Labour, SNP and even on occasion the Greens have shown that opposing checks on motoring and dismissing active travel is widely seen as a popular cause and a vote-winner.

Really good news. Still has one hurdle to get over, according to BBC, but they don't say what that is. Maybe it needs WECA approval (in which case, I fear it won't happen if Helen Godwin wins).

And it's worth remembering it's not just Park St – it's from Vic Rooms down to College Green. https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/park-street-improvemen...

Haven't spent much time in Bristol for decades - but back in the day much was pretty gridlocked at least once per day. Has it got better?

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Haven't spent much time in Bristol for decades - but back in the day much was pretty gridlocked at least once per day. Has it got better?

Nope

I think it has got better in some locations. For example, Baldwin Street and Victoria Street. Bus gates there have improved conditions greatly for me. I guess I might feel differently if I wanted to drive a car that way

Wonder what could ultimately be behind that though?

* Strokes chin, looking at the changes in the high street over the last few decades: the continuing growth of motornormativity, online everything, cultural shifts in consumption ... then shakes head - no, must be buses or cycling or something. *

Its ridiculous, though: I do not for one moment believe that people drive onto Park Street and then park their car outside (or even, near) Woodes to get a coffee or whatever.  And TBH I don't imagine that very many park outside, or near, any of the shops on Park Street.  It just isn't that sort of a road.

brooksby wrote:

Its ridiculous, though: I do not for one moment believe that people drive onto Park Street and then park their car outside (or even, near) Woodes to get a coffee or whatever.  And TBH I don't imagine that very many park outside, or near, any of the shops on Park Street.  It just isn't that sort of a road.

I'll miss Woodes if it does indeed vanish, but the idea that motorists kept it going is bizarre. It is surrounded by some major workplaces in easy walking distance: the council, the university, environment agency. Working from home?

brooksby wrote:

It just isn't that sort of a road.

You're right - it's more like Cotham Hill and just look how that has been ruined (ruined!) by being closed to through traffic and filled with nice shops and restaurants.