BCP are rolling out the 20 mph limits, apparently they have 77 so far, with many more to follow.  Their current tack is they want these ‘close to schools’ and where there have been a number of ‘serious collisions’.  On the face of this, this doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Interesting that the most recent proposed zone is quoted by BCP as the ‘most serious area for collisions’ if this is the case why wasn’t this the first area, rather than the 78th?  It is clear that is not BCP’s real aim and that they would have preferred blanket 20mph across the conurbation and when this was muted by the council a poll conducted by the Echo indicated that this was opposed by 82% of the population, so they realised that this would have a great deal of resistance.  Next we were next told that BCP would not go for a blanket 20mph but only in residential streets, which sounds fine until you realise that nearly all the roads in BCP have houses on them and are therefore ‘residential’, so in effect any other disguised blanket limit.

BCP have now moved the policy on to ‘close to schools’ and where there have been serious collisions.  Their idea of close to schools is not the 100 meters either side of the gates as you might expect but much further away, I have seen suggestions of a mile or more.  This again pretty much includes all of BCP when you draw 1 mile radius around each school, so again a blanket limit, by stealth. 

If schools are the real concern, then they should replicate Dorset County Council’s policy and have the 20mph limit when the schools are open, not 24 hours a day 365 days a year and only within 100 meters of the school gates.  Most younger children still arrive and leave school in mum’s car and the driving and parking of mum or dad’s ‘taxi’ which often leaves much to be desire in terms of road safety around school gates. We even have a well know Councilor, who videos these events outside schools, although we now know he is ‘not acting as a councilor’ when filming children outside schools.

On the issue of serious collisions, if we want no collisions, we ban all vehicles. There has to be a reasonable balance between effective travel and road safety, although I think some councilors and other activists might want to ban all private vehicles.  If the council reviewed the road collision statistics, they would see that these show, that despite the number of vehicles on the road increasing every year the number of collisions and deaths reduces every year.  The UK is without doubt one of the safest countries in Europe and the World to be a road user, as a result of the year on year reduction in collisions.

So why are BCP so anti motorist, well it stems from the fact that they declared a ‘climate emergency’ in 2019 and their councilors and officers have openly stated there are too many cars on the road in BCP and they want to get 50% of them off the road.  This is why they are implementing a number of anti-motorist measures; 20mph, LTNs, increased parking charges, removal of bus lay-bys, reducing road widths and removing road junctions.  They want you the motorist off the road, through an undeclared ‘war on motorists’ although they will deny that this is the case.  With the 20mph limits close to schools they have the real option of having these operating only during school hours to protect children, but they won’t and it is clear what the real agenda is and children safety is not the issue. 

We support road safety.  We would like to see a number of measures; proper school buses for all children to reduce congestion and improve safety outside schools that is frequently sadly lacking at the end of the school day.  Better road safety training at schools, increased enforcement of existing laws; get illegal e-scooters and e-motor bikes off the road.  All too often we see existing laws being openly flouted in front of the police who seem to do nothing about it.  We understand that Dorset Police have no intention of even attempting to enforce the 20mph limits, so this becomes more of a suggestion rather than an effective piece of legislation.  Our worry is the more laws that are ignored, then respect for the police and the law is eroded and that is increasingly apparent to us all every day.

In recent years, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have been implemented in various cities with the intent of reducing traffic congestion and pollution. While the objectives are noble, the reality of LTNs often diverges from their intended benefits. Here’s a closer look at why LTNs may actually increase traffic and fail to reduce pollution.

1. Displacement of Traffic

LTNs are designed to restrict vehicular movement within certain areas, encouraging drivers to find alternative routes. However, this often leads to increased traffic on surrounding roads. The displaced traffic doesn’t disappear; it simply moves to adjacent streets, creating bottlenecks and congestion in those areas.

For example, when a residential street is closed off to through traffic, drivers are forced onto main roads that may already be operating at or near capacity. This shift can result in higher volumes of traffic on these main arteries, leading to more frequent and severe traffic jams. The increase in stop-and-go driving conditions contributes to higher emissions, countering any potential pollution reductions within the LTN itself.

2. Increased Journey Times and Distances

One of the significant drawbacks of LTNs is the increase in journey times and distances. With direct routes through neighbourhoods being restricted, drivers are often forced to take longer detours. This not only increases the time spent on the road but also the distance traveled.

Longer travel distances result in higher fuel consumption and, consequently, more emissions. The environmental benefit of reducing traffic in a small area is offset by the increase in pollution caused by extended journeys.

3. Congestion on Major Roads

LTNs can exacerbate congestion on major roads, leading to a ripple effect across the urban road network. As more cars are funneled onto fewer routes, the capacity of these roads is quickly overwhelmed. The increased congestion can lead to gridlock situations, where the overall traffic flow in the city is severely disrupted.

The higher concentration of vehicles on main roads not only increases travel times but also heightens stress levels among drivers, potentially leading to more aggressive driving behaviour and accidents. Additionally, emergency services may face delays due to congested main roads, compromising response times.

4. Lack of Alternative Transportation Infrastructure

For LTNs to be effective, there must be robust alternative transportation options available. However, in many cases, the implementation of LTNs precedes the development of adequate public transport, cycling lanes, and pedestrian pathways. Without these alternatives, residents and commuters have limited options other than using their cars, exacerbating the very problems LTNs aim to solve.

Investment in public transport and active travel infrastructure is crucial for LTNs to achieve their intended goals. Without these investments, the reliance on cars remains high, and the benefits of traffic reduction within LTNs are negated by increased traffic elsewhere.

5. Behavioural Adaptation of Drivers

Drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in response to new traffic patterns. While LTNs might initially reduce traffic within the designated areas, drivers often find new shortcuts or shift their travel times to avoid congestion. Over time, these adaptations can dilute the effectiveness of LTNs, leading to a gradual return of traffic issues.

Moreover, LTNs can create a sense of exclusivity, where certain neighborhoods benefit at the expense of others. This can lead to socio-economic disparities and tensions between communities.

6. Case Studies and Real-World Examples

Numerous case studies from cities that have implemented LTNs show mixed results. For instance, some areas in London and other European cities have reported increased traffic on peripheral roads and no significant decrease in overall pollution levels. In some cases, the quality of life for residents outside the LTNs has deteriorated due to higher noise levels and air pollution.

Studies suggest that while LTNs might create quieter and safer streets within the neighbourhood, they do not necessarily translate to broader environmental benefits. The localized improvements are often outweighed by the negative impacts on the wider urban area.

Conclusion

While LTNs are a well-intentioned urban planning tool aimed at reducing traffic and pollution, their real-world impacts often reveal a more complex picture. Displaced traffic, increased journey distances, congestion on major roads, and the lack of alternative transport infrastructure can undermine the effectiveness of LTNs. For LTNs to truly contribute to sustainable urban mobility, they must be part of a comprehensive strategy that includes significant investments in public transport and active travel options. Without these complementary measures, LTNs risk becoming a case of shifting problems rather than solving them.

Bournemouth Echo have recently published a letter from a BCP resident, who is just one of the growing number of voices frustrated about the lack of engagement from the local authority.

Listening to Our Community: A Response to Local Concerns

A letter to Bournemouth Echo: https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24343006.letter-listen-people-saying/
Image attribution: Bournemouth Echo

Within BCP area, a vibrant community thrives, with each voice contributing to the rich tapestry of local life. However, recent developments have continued concerns that these voices are being drowned and downtrodden by its Council. A recent letter published in the Bournemouth Echo highlights the growing frustration among residents who feel their opinions are being overlooked. This sentiment deserves our attention and respect, as it underscores the vital importance of community engagement in local governance.

The Pulse of the Community

The letter to the editor is a clarion call for local authorities to truly listen to the people they serve. It emphasizes a fundamental principle of democracy: governance by the people and for the people. When decisions about urban development, public amenities, or environmental policies are made without adequate public consultation, the community's trust in their leaders erodes. The letter poignantly reminds us that behind every policy and project, there are real people whose lives are directly impacted.

A Case for Genuine Engagement

Effective community engagement is more than just a procedural checkbox; it is the bedrock of responsive and responsible governance. The letter to the Bournemouth Echo reflects a common sentiment among residents who feel that recent public consultations have been superficial, with decisions appearing to be predetermined. This perception not only alienates the community but also leads to sub-optimal outcomes that may not address the real needs and desires of the people.

To bridge this gap, local authorities must commit to genuine engagement. This involves not only soliciting feedback but also demonstrating how that feedback shapes decisions. Transparent communication about why certain suggestions are adopted or not can foster a sense of inclusion and respect.

The Benefits of Listening

Listening to the community has tangible benefits. When residents feel heard, they are more likely to support and participate in local initiatives. This civic engagement can lead to a more cohesive community, where public projects are embraced and maintained with a sense of collective ownership. Moreover, local knowledge can provide invaluable insights that might be overlooked by external consultants or top-down decision-making processes.

For instance, long-term residents often have a deep understanding of their neighborhood’s unique challenges and opportunities. Their input can help identify practical solutions that are sustainable and culturally appropriate. By tapping into this wealth of local knowledge, authorities can design policies and projects that are not only effective but also deeply rooted in the community’s identity.

Building Trust through Action

Restoring trust requires more than just words; it requires consistent action. Authorities must show that they value public input through their actions. This could involve regular town hall meetings, accessible platforms for feedback, and clear, honest updates on project developments. When people see their contributions making a real difference, trust in local governance can be rebuilt.

The recent outcry, as articulated in the Bournemouth Echo letter, is a powerful reminder that listening is not a passive act but an active commitment to the principles of democracy. It is about valuing each voice and recognizing that every resident, regardless of their background or status, has a stake in the community's future.

A Call to Action

In conclusion, the letter to the Bournemouth Echo is more than a critique; it is a call to action. It urges local authorities to re-evaluate their approach to public consultation and to prioritize genuine, inclusive engagement. By listening to the people and incorporating their insights into the decision-making process, we can ensure that our community remains vibrant, resilient, and united.

The BCP Dorset Motorists group ask that we heed this call and work together to create a future where every voice is heard and valued. After all, a community that listens is a community that thrives.