Green aims conflict with parking plans

The Chronicle reports conflict between residents’ car parking expectations and the introduction of safer cycling routes.

Councillor Sarah Warren is quoted as saying that her administration will “work closely with residents and commuters... to codesign strategic routes and schemes”. This seems a strange and probably unworkable promise.

I used to park our family car outside my house. Reluctantly, but quite rightly, we had to lose this space to yellow lines when the council argued that safety and bus punctuality were compromised by the presence of parked vehicles.

We residents could not really claim that our individual convenience was more important than the safety of fellow citizens and reliability of a public service for hundreds of others.

Councillor Warren’s statement implies that, in future, incoming commuters and local residents will influence the retention of parking spaces.

Yet it’s well known that many vehicles parked on key routes slow and endanger transport by buses and cyclists (and now scooter riders).

If B&NES council now accords veto powers to car owners what will happen to election pledges to prioritise forms of green transport? As

a harassed “car parker” I sympathise with those who may lose the nearest parking space.

But can any of us, except those with disabilities, have a right to alter measures intended for the common good (health, fitness, road safety) for our personal convenience?

How can Councillor Warren and her cabinet promise to accommodate both residents’ and commuters’ car parking and their stated promises to green the city’s transport?

Moreover, if schemes depart from very strict Dept of Transport guidelines on layout and structure then the government guidelines are emphatic: they will not qualify for funding and any money received under the active travel programme will have to be repaid!

Bryn Jones

Bath