[ad_1]
We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. @evanrud is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.
“Boy rushed to hospital as ‘pollution’ brought on asthma attack” https://t.co/qfnNg1lHfS
— Bath Local Conservatives (@BathCA) October 10, 2022
Turns out British Cycling wasn’t the only organisation getting grief for its environmental position yesterday…
The Bath Conservative Association – a longstanding advocate of active travel, judging from its Twitter timeline (or maybe not) – was roundly condemned by cycling campaigners after it weighed in on the issue of congestion and pollution in the city… by claiming that the only answer is to get motor traffic “moving”.
The party association was responding to a letter in the Bath Chronicle by Evan Rudowski, a local who has lived car-free for over two decades but believes that the conversation surrounding how best to reduce car use in the city has been “poisoned” by “a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution”.
In the letter, which can be read in full here, Rudowski writes:
Bath is choked with cars. Reducing car use would benefit the city greatly in terms of overall quality of life – reducing traffic, congestion, pollution and, in the long term, our collective carbon footprint.
Of course, getting rid of cars is a massive challenge and needs to be solved primarily on a societal level. But all of us are still obligated to do what we can locally, and personally. In my family’s case, we’ve chosen to live a car-free life for the past 24 years. We’ve made deliberate choices to achieve this, in terms of where we live, work and go to school…
Unfortunately, the conversation regarding how best to reduce car use has been poisoned in Bath, and more broadly, by a small but vocal minority of ideologues who are convinced that cycling is the solution.
They argue that closing certain roads to car traffic, thus making it less convenient to drive but more friendly for cyclists, will hasten the shift to different modes of transport. Such schemes are referred to as low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) or active travel or, sometimes, Liveable Neighbourhoods. They are not so much intended to improve things immediately, but rather to help us achieve net zero carbon in the future.
Living alongside the A36 as my family does, no one would like to see car traffic reduced more than we would. The frequently poor air quality we suffer here, and that all of Bath suffers from regularly, has had real health impacts. My oldest child uses an inhaler. I’ll never forget the night I had to rush him to the RUH with breathing difficulties. But low-traffic neighbourhoods are not the answer.
Yes, LTNs make some people’s streets very pleasant, reducing through traffic on those streets while still enabling those residents to keep their own cars and drive in and out or receive deliveries however they please. How nice for them.
But the traffic, congestion and resulting air pollution moved off those privileged streets has to go somewhere. Where? Onto main roads where many more residents live, work and go to school. Neighbourhoods such as Bathwick, where I live, already have enormous amounts of through traffic but relatively low car ownership. It’s unfair, impractical and self-defeating to push more traffic onto our main roads.
Praising Rudowski’s letter, which also called for the introduction of a Clean Air Charging Zone, a workplace parking levy and increased spending on public transport in place of the more “extreme” LTN measures, the Bath Conservatives wrote: “We all want less traffic in Bath itself during the rush hours, and for that traffic to be moving. [Rudowski] is right: blocking roads, hoping traffic will ‘evaporate’ isn’t the way to do it.”
Unsurprisingly, many on Twitter, for some reason, disagreed with the apparent sentiment that increasing car usage would reduce pollution:
Is this a parody account? https://t.co/VOfzEaWiPZ
— Ken Borg (@kenborg24) October 10, 2022
Sorry if I’m being dense, but isn’t “getting traffic moving” a recipe for more traffic, not less?
— 🏚️ ꓠꓲꓯꓕꓲꓤꓭ ꓠꓱꓘꓳꓤꓭ (@willsortitout) October 11, 2022
Do you actually read and think about your own tweets? Someone is a victim of traffic pollution and you use that to justify the free movement of cars? Take a good look at yourself.
— GT 🍃💚🍃 (@Graham21) October 10, 2022
Call me fixated, but I still can’t shift the idea from my head that it’s the motor vehicles that are creating the pollution. If only there were more space-efficient, less expensive, less polluting alternatives to motor cars. https://t.co/MxRGHVTfc5
— Tim on two wheels (@2wheelsgoodBrum) October 11, 2022
As an asthmatic myself, I would appreciate you not appropriating my condition to further your misplaced cause. As transport preference is clearly the issue here, you should be encouraging motorists to adopt other forms of transport to get from A to B to protect my lungs.
— Andy (@IAmKuriousBrown) October 10, 2022
It’s been proven time and time again. Increases in road capacity are absorbed by more traffic. “Induced demand”.
And it works the other way too. Removing capacity and the trips reduce. Traffic ends up reverting to similar levels… Just with less pollution.
— Dave Mc (@Guigsy) October 11, 2022
And no better way to illustrate that than the single occupancy SUV that is seen in this picture
— Evan P (@YourSUVsucks) October 10, 2022
The only way to reduce pollution is to move people from driving to public transport, walking, and cycling. Making traffic flow more freely just generates more traffic and more pollution.
— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) October 10, 2022
Built many new roads in my life, as a highway engineer of 20 years. I can go back to any road I’ve been involved in and it will be most congested and most polluted part of that area.Restricting traffic in urban areas only way to resolve air pollution.More capacity=more pollution
— Scott Cooper (@CoopsPine) October 10, 2022
[ad_2]
Source link
