-
Sorry Oliver but you are wrong on a few things here.
'Motor-free', 'car-free', 'fume-free' etc. all work better.
They don't. We've worked with these before and they carry a certain amount of baggage with them around who uses them and some of the perceptions of what they're taken to imply. In an environment with a broad range of politics, culture and backgrounds they can be toxic to your endeavours and lead to a contagious dismissive attitude. We could very easily grind our plans and proposals to a halt. We knew the risks around use of the term "pedestrianise" and the alternatives available and we had some frank internal discussions about what to use. Sometimes knowing your audience is more important than idealised terminology.
The associated imagery has been useful too so when we've started to talking to people about this, they've already come to the assumption that bicycle will be included too. You say "they will inevitably not think of shared use and cyclists" but "they" are already proving you wrong. You might want to be careful of that sort of use of "they", it can be quite divisive and tribalistic. You say "it squeezes cyclists out" but despite the risk, we're already working past that.
Fortunately language isn't the only issue. There's been some important underpinning work around this being a thing that will include cyclists. If we get the management of it right the first time round, that will be a foundation piece.
road closures
This is always a problematic, negative idea
You might think that but again, we're back to knowing our audience and the strong value of calling things what they are. I could say all the stuff you have about modal filters and car-freeness and what I'd get back is withering looks and a telling that I'm closing the road. To some people a road closure is the clear and literal you're looking for. Knowing your audience is almost definitely more important than tickboxing your terminology.
If retailers are going to be objecting the loudest then we're pretty much home free for a permanent change because they have genuinely been our biggest supporters. Sadly they aren't the loudest objectors so we'll probably have a bit more work to do, not all of it with them though.
And yes, the deliveries (some) and access to private parking (none on the street we're car freeing) were all scoped out and planned for very early on in the process. As was early discussion with members of the emergency services and making links with the local pan-disability access liaison group.
Be careful of planning for setbacks and delays. I did and then the Council did a lot of heavy lifting to make things happen quickly. If I'd known that, I would have done things differently.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
The_Seldom_Killer
@Oliver Schick
There is something north of the M25???
Good stirrings, but it's worth being really careful with words here. I know you know this, and we have various threads on it, but to re-iterate--the following are not pedantic points, so apologies if they come across like them, but very important for getting the language right from the outset:
Avoid the term 'pedestrianisation'. (Well, erm, obviously it's in the thread title. :) ) It will always try to creep in, but it squeezes cyclists out. 'Motor-free', 'car-free', 'fume-free' etc. all work better. If people think of a pedestrian zone, they will inevitably not think of shared use and cyclists, and it is worth making sure the right expectation is generated from the outset. (Remember that the vast majority of 'pedestrian zones', both in Europe and in Britain, were introduced when the bike was a largely forgotten mode, thought obsolete, and the idea was basically to build large car parks around traditional centres so that everybody could drive to them and park there, and then walk around before piling their shopping into their cars. It has only been in the last two decades that some pedestrian zones have had cycling permitted, but there's still a long way to go.)
'Motor traffic'. You want loads of traffic in those streets, and obviously people on foot and bikes are traffic that uses space a lot more efficiently.
Much better. :)
This is always a problematic, negative idea. Avoid it. What is meant is that the road/street (for urban spaces use 'street' wherever possible) is configured so that motor traffic, or just non-public service vehicle motor traffic, is 'filtered' out (i.e., the big lumps, as in a filter). 'Modal filters' is a good concept, as are the above terms for 'car-freeness' etc. Nobody would want a 'road' closed, as that would make no sense, since roads and streets are for people movement, people lingering for a while, having conversations, accessing shops, etc. Obviously, some people understand what is meant by 'road closure', but some instinctively react to the negativity of it, and in public discourse it is always worth being as clear and literal as possible.
It all sounds good. Despite this, be prepared for setbacks and delays. Do a lot of work with retailers, as they'll be the group objecting the loudest. Make sure there's a plan for deliveries, e.g. whether they could mostly be made in the early morning for those business premises that don't have rear access. Some motor vehicle access will still be required occasionally. Are there any private car parks off your chosen streets? Access to these would have to be maintained. Prevent any attempt to introduce one-way streets in the centre, as these are sometimes thought necessary by engineers and transport planners.
In Hackney, we did a very successful project a few years ago along the same lines in Mare Street Narroway, which is worth looking at if you're ever down in London again. Let me know if you want to be shown around. :)