The Clifton Expanded Parking Zone: what did Barbara say?

Readers! you have only two more days to email tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk with your praise for the TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815

It's important to do this, as we hear that the cycling troublemakers are going to oppose this, claiming the "unused" double yellow lines on Princess Victoria Street could be turned into  a (segregated) contraflow for cyclists, and that rather than kill plans to add on-street cycle parking -they should extend it!

If there is one thing that should stop the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone being derailed by any cyclists opposing -it is the support of the council staff and the local councillors

We know this -being a data driven organisation- by way of videos taken at the Neighbourhood Partnership meeting in 2011 where this went through



At the beginning, there's "residents have recommended to remove double yellow lines to increase the parking -so your council is fully supportive of these plans"

An initial troublemaker asks about timetables and when they could object to them -she's dismissed with a "later" rather than the secret "it'll be announced on lampposts over christmas and not on the council consultation RSS feed that you tax-dodgers subscribe to"

at 1:45 another troublemaker picks on the parking-for-traffic-calming story

"what amuses me is where it says we will increase the parking as a form of traffic calming -which seems to me, daft- ... the proposals are at odds with the council's main proposal of hierarchy which goes 'pedestrians, cycles, public-transport first'. And I'm curious how you reconcile that with this devolved planning"

That's one of those trick questions, as he's clearly implying that if you devolve planning to residents then they may come up with ideas about parking at the expense of possible cycling routes and parking -and how is the council going to deal with that situation.

At this point (2:24),  Barbara Janke, councillor for Clifton East subtly defects this line of attack not by directly saying "yes, it is utterly inconsistent, so what", but instead implying its such a small amount of money there's no point worrying about it.

"Basically, this is only a vary small part of the total highways and transport budget. There are strategic plans, ... this is a small part of the traffic budget which has been delegated so that we can try and get local people into the -um- various areas that we serve. So previously these things have been decided centrally by the executive member and .. implemented. Now the officers have brought what they would recommend -and there's opportunities for people here to input . But these are not the total budget, there are ... other proposals going on elsewhere, strategically, you know, but very localised subjects ... give an opportunity ...
Strategic considerations are part of a much bigger part...
(interruption by the troublemaker)

I understand that, but I think these tactical engagements are odd with the strategic ones. and also I dont see any involvement of people like Ed Plowden of cycling city in this proposal And finally do you consider walking or cycling to be strategic or not, that's the big question, because major transport was mentioned?

barbara: (deftly) No, we do! There are strategic plans being worked on, there is a walking plan ... ... (some dismission) a  much bigger -this is only a small section, ands its reactive to complaints in the local area. Some of it may not be necessarily long term either.

We know that once parking has been added, the locals will fight the council with sharp knives to have it removed. So does Barbara -but she's not daft enough to say it out loud.

Congratulations Barbara! We are confident that the addition of eight more parking spaces will tip the next election in your favour -as confident we are that none of the people trying to walk or cycling in the area are voters in your wards -or the high value customers the shops need.