We had hoped that it being the last day to get comments in to the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone proposal, there'd be nobody else complaining about it.
No, instead we get a copy of yet another objection -this one making the fallacious claim that the #8/#9 bus service is any good (he says "best in the city", which is a lower standard, but nothing meanders like the #8 -except if you get on the #9 going in the opposite direction from where you intended).
Please write in with your support for the plan, else these objections may be listened to!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 14 January 2013 12:54
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Mark Wright <email@example.com>, Alex Woodman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jon Rogers <email@example.com>, Gus Hoyt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I'm writing to object to aspects of the proposed TROs in Clifton, not in specific terms, but in general regarding the overall approach. The traffic orders appear to have been drawn up without any interaction between the highways and urban design departments, reinforcing the appearance of 'silo' attitudes within separate council departments.
Surely, as a cycling city, we should actively encourage forms of transport other than the private car as a de facto standard across the entire city, and have a 'joined-up' approach to anything which affects the public realm?
Clifton is well served by public transport (with arguably the best bus service in the city, complete with free wi-fi on most buses). Sadly, many people feel that the car is a better alternative. Allowing more parking will only reinforce this impression, and undermine more sustainable forms of transport.
The area is currently badly served for cyclists, with little secure bike parking, which the TRO does nothing to address. The motor vehicle dominated one-way system does nothing for cycle permeability, and the proposed changes to the parking provision will prevent any future contraflow cycling lanes.
The dominance of cars (many just circling round trying to find a parking space), makes the pedestrian experience of using the village particularly unpleasant in what should be a jewel in Bristol's urban landscape. The Boyce's Avenue experiment has been a success, so rather than seeking to find additional parking paces for cars why not be radical and consider extending the scheme to the eastern part of Princess Victoria Street, The Mall and Waterloo Street. This would bring a much needed car-free environment to central Clifton for much of the day, allowing traders to use the pavements, bringing vibrancy and vitality to the area. The 'Village' would then become a village once again, at least between, say, 09:00 and 18:00 every day. This proposal would cost little to implement initially, but in the longer term could be extended to full pedestrianisation of these streets.
As a sop to motorists, proper implementation of 90 degree parking throughout Caledonia Place and West Mall would more than make up for the loss of car parking spaces, but would mean the traffic no longer circulates in the busy shopping area. The down-side would, of course, mean that motorists might have to walk 50 metres or so to get to a shop...
Surely this makes sense?
Outside the village, I have no strong feeling about the proposals, although I welcome the proposed changes to Worcester Road and Pembroke Vale as these seem more logical than the current arrangement.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Quick -it is not to late to counteract this CPEZ objection
Posted by SteveL at 12:00
Labels: clifton, clifton-expanded-parking-zone, council
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment