That is the problem in essence. The steps that would work are unpopular. By contrast LTNs are counterproductive, but popular with NIMBYs fooling themselves that they're being green.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I don't think there's a solution as long as central Oxford is hothoused beyond the capacity of its site. Personally, I'd build a more practical replacement city somewhere in that massive underdeveloped area that surrounds Oxford, but I don't suppose anyone will ask me.
Not "rebuild". There's a niche for an ornamental city festooned with Gothic pinnacles. It's just that maybe we should stop pretending that it is the only conceivable place for everything from shopping centres to vaccine research to AI startups. The housing is already elsewhere, why not the rest?
Having spoken in depth to some Oxford councillors there are some specific factors in Oxford - including long-term roadworks on the Botley Road and the City’s topography that impacted bus times. These *DO NOT* apply to LTNs in general which *ARE NOT* counterproductive
Both of those claims are quite wrong. The Botley Road closure is on the other side of town and didn't exactly coincide with the LTN introduction. The evidence from the bus companies is unequivocal: the LTNs ruined the bus service, leading to it being cut. Twice.
That fact isn't (or shouldn't be) controversial. The argument in favour of the LTNs is that their clear adverse impact will be mitigated by the introduction of traffic filters. It is that that has been delayed by the Botley Road bridge closure.
I doubt, myself, whether the traffic filters will ever be introduced. The reason for that is that the access points to the City from the ringroad are overloaded now, and the traffic filters will push the traffic to the only one that gives access to the centre by car (the Banbury Road).
Comments
/1
/2
/3
In any event, the traffic filters should have gone in before the LTNs.
Why weren't they (they could have been before the Botley bridge closure).
/4