Cotham Hill opening to non-motorists

[whole diary]

[johnneyw]

It's already slightly less makeshift in that the red and white plastic barriers originally used have been replaced with more attractive wooden planters. But the signs still have a temporary air. I would hope that if the scheme becomes permanent, the entire width of the street would be paved. At the moment there are makeshift ramps – little slopes of tarmac on the kerb – where restaurant seating has been extended over the whole pavement. This is a bit unsatisfactory IMO^▸ (in my opinion).

I'll also take this opportunity to remind people of the Cotham Hill street party on Sunday 12th September: bands, food, dancing, fun!

Agreed, I would welcome the experiment to be deemed successful (as I suspect it might) and a degree of nicely designed permanence introduced.

[Red Squirrel]

The permanent scheme is now open for consultation:

https://bristol.citizenspace.com/sustainable-transport/cotham-hill-permanent-scheme/

[Bmblbzzz]

There appears to be an error in either the map or the text of Option B. The text does not mention a one-way section on Abbotsford Road but the map shows one. I think they've either accidentally copied this over on the map from Option A or failed to add it to the text.

[Red Squirrel]

The consultation has been botched. The text descriptions of the options do not match the maps, which are hard to read.

I and others have pointed this out to the Transport Engagement team, but thus far they don't seem to think there is a problem. It would help if you were happy to email them at

Transport.Engagement@bristol.gov.uk

and tell them that you too find it confusing!

[Bmblbzzz]

Will do! I also noted a comment in Bristol 24/7 (I think, or was it Bristol Live) to the effect of "It was recently announced that this scheme would become permanent so a) why another consultation b) why does that consultation include Option C would remove the pedestrianisation?

[Red Squirrel]

The consultation for this scheme is now closed. You can see the results here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/sustainable-transport/cotham-hill-permanent-scheme/

Three options were offered. Two involved retaining and enhancing the scheme, differing only in the details of whether West Park was included or not; the third option would have re-opened Cotham Hill to one-way motor traffic.

90% of respondents supported the options which retained the current scheme; 5% supported the one-way street option and 5% didn't know.

Further statutory consultation will now take place towards a TRO^» (Trowbridge - next trains) later in the year.

[Chris from Nailsea]

...I have to drive my delivery van there...

I must admit I thought Bristol City Council (BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about)) had been rather clever here, leaving an access route via Hampton Park and Hampton Lane so that anyone needing to get to, rather than through, the area can still do so.
But your mileage, as they say Chris, may vary! Do these schemes make it harder for delivery drivers? Does the reduction in rat-running traffic balance out that to any extent?

I have to say that the closure of the lower end of Cotham Hill to road traffic did cause me some inconvenience on Saturday evening. 

Following my SatNav's audible suggestion in the background, I turned my van right from Whiteladies Road into Cotham Hill, moments before remembering this topic. 

I then had to turn my Mercedes Sprinter van around, in the remaining road area at that junction.  The number of pedestrians who continued to walk across the tarmac road surface behind my van was incredible.  I had everything on - reversing lights, brake lights and audible squarker!  Fortunately, I could see them all in the reverse-facing CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), so I continued to reverse, at less than walking pace. 

All I wanted to do was get to an address in Hampton Road.  I eventually managed to drive up Aberdeen Road and approach it from there. 

[ellendune]

Following my SatNav's audible suggestion in the background, I turned my van right from Whiteladies Road into Cotham Hill, moments before remembering this topic. 

There do seem to be many problems with SatNavs some suggested mitigations:

1) Require suppliers to provide free updates (preferably uploaded automatically as computer software updates are)
2) Suppliers, through some sort of trade association to prov ide a single source where highway authorities and others can report changes and problems
3) Require suppliers to include restrictions on vehicle size, weight etc.  And require users to enter this data for their vehicle into the satnav at the start of the journey

[GBM]

Currently have a Mazda system, and that's only updated twice a year.
Expensive as well to update.

I've seen quite a few PCV drivers using the small car satnavs to help them.
Guess it would be too expensive for companies to provide the appropriate satnav system for the correct vehicle, and updates as well.

I remember TomTom did a 'large vehicle' satnav where you used to input vehicle type and size, etc.

[ellendune]

That's the problem really, the suppliers pricing policies drive people to use inappropriate and out of date satnavs.

[Bmblbzzz]

I had everything on - reversing lights, brake lights and audible squarker! 

I like this word and shall start using it at every opportunity!

[Red Squirrel]

I was astonished to discover how much it would cost to get our car's inbuilt satnav updated. It was a lot cheaper to get a sturdy mount for a phone and use Google Maps instead.

One particular bugbear is the 'speed limit' feature, when the satnav shows a speed limit sign. The inbuilt satnav often indicates '60' when we are in a '40' zone, for example. Google Maps is usually quite quick to recognise these changes. Google Maps can also tell you when it would be quicker to take public transport or walk!