Monday, 14 January 2013

Who is objecting to the Expanded Parking zone!



We had expected out readers to write in supporting the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone. But instead someone copies us in on an objection they sent in


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: David Date: 14 January 2013 16:06
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
To: "tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk" <tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk>
To whom it may concern,

I am a regular visitor to Clifton and would like to write in objecting to the proposed plans to add more car parking in Clifton.

These proposals are at odds with the council's main proposal of hierarchy which should be 'pedestrians, cycles, public-transport first'.

We are supposed to be a cycling city, yet at every turn the good work of that project is being eroded by short term proposals such as this. This change is a missed opportunity to implement some decent segregated infrastructure for bicycle users.

By providing extra residential and short stay car parking in the area, it will make walking and cycling worse and do nothing to improve the quality of life in this lovely area. The proposed intent to reduce anti-social parking should be achieved through better enforcement of existing traffic regulations rather than this expensive and backward step.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours faithfully,

David

-----
This is as shocking as if the proprietor of the daily mail announced he was going to enter a civilian partnership with a muslim refugee on unemployment benefit.

We urge all our readers to write in demanding that the proposal is enacted in full.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Commenters MUST NOT post spam, MUST NOT post requests for cross linking and MUST NOT post up requests for paid links. Such attempts SHALL result in one or more postings in which we MAY be rude or we MAY make fun of you and MAY include your public email address. Furthermore, we MAY report you to google for attempts at paid linking, who SHALL then punish your site.

Comments are closed after two days -after that they are moderated. You MUST be logged in to post.

This statement follows RFC2119 rules regarding the use of MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, and SHALL and MUST be treated as normative.