A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
They did similar round here. Now people park on the road and, as a result people drive their cars on the pavement. Would be nice if they actually slowed down while doing so, mind.
Nice to see my home city here! As a resident for almost forty years I can give some context.
Sadly, cars are necessary in Bristol. Public transport has been a monopoly for far too long, and getting anywhere is both expensive and unreliable. On no less than two occasions I've watched as someone breaks down into tears on the bus because they're late to work for the last time, because a 25 min car journey and a 45 minutes bike ride has taken 90 mins+. We are big on cycling, but when you bear in mind that parking is nonexistent and Bristol is very hilly, it paints a picture where cycling is basically the only cheap way to get around.
We have a lot of gammons here, but Bristol is mostly a progressive city, and as someone with a young child it isn't uncommon for cars to be on pavements. It's absolutely the right step, but with ULEZ, residents parking charges, 20 mph lanes, traffic slowdown measures, and simple roadworks that can often take 18-24 months, motorists also have every reason to be pissed too. I appreciate where I'm posting this, but ultimately Bristol just likes to ignore the impact of cars instead of leaning one way or another - and it ultimately just pisses off motorists to make everything a vendetta.
What Bristol needs is another form of public transport that isn't buses. I hate to say it because he was a corrupt cunt, but Marvin Rees' subway idea was IMO the only way to solve this. Add it to the current train lines, add stations to the centre, and pay it off over 50-60 years with the construction company footing the bill and getting the proceeds + interest if they can build lines asap. I'd go as far as to way to also build underground cycle lanes too, so that cyclists can cycle without fear of shitty roads and dangerous cars.
The article says part of the plan is to use fine money as a way to inject cash into the bus system. That seems like a good idea, but I'd like a local's opinion! Is the bus system not working due to lack of routes? Long intervals? Something else?
It's a great idea in theory, but the bus service here is dominated by one company that has underperformed for decades. Not only that, but they have a history of pushing competition out where possible, and reducing routes to overload other companies that move in - so there's that problem.
Politically, Bristol is quite strange. Lots of corruption, lots of green ideas, but lots of problems that need tough solutions. Around two decades ago we were sick of our council being so corrupt, so we voted for elected mayors like London. The two mayor's we had were both corrupt - one syphoning off green capital money to his family, one pretending to build an underground subway and an arena while taking kickbacks from YTL and achieving literally nothing. Both mayors touted a subway, and one funneled tens of millions into...another set of bus routes now controlled by private companies. The second spent a decade of terms pretending to build a subway, and achieved literally nothing. We now voted to get rid of mayors, and the council are shit again.
To then answer your question - all of the above and more. The bus service would probably need to expand by 3x overnight to be reliable, it would also need additional routes AND to somehow not get caught up in the horrendous traffic in the city. The buses have been so bad for so long, with so many broken promises, that many locals just drive or cycle, because at least that way you'll get where you need to go on time. It's probably the one thing that everyone in Bristol is unified by, and any talk of trams, subways, etc are all met with "you can't even run a fucking bus route, how will you manage that".
To cut my rant short, Bristol is too big, too expensive, and too poorly connected to make commuting possible. It needs a bold decision to be made, rather than giving First's shareholders some more money.
The statements about how much people just have to have their cars parked everywhere because there's not enough space for their cars so they need to take over everything for the cars is scary. Didn't the city exist before cars were invented? Maybe there's ways to live without the car at all times?