Featured post

Never been happier to see road closures! Cow Lane bridges update

Lots of things make me happy.  My family and friends, a really good curry, prosecco, getting through a body pump class without having ...

2 Dec 2013

More residents parking on the way in Battle?

In a previous Traffic Management Sub-Committee meetinga a report was brought to us outlining plans to increase the number of residents parking spaces in Battle ward by redefining parking bays (Item 5 here).  This report was approved and consultation has begun.

If you want to take a look at the plans and make a comment you can here: http://www.reading-travelinfo.co.uk/traffic-orders/advertised-traffic-orders/residents-parking-order-2013.aspx

This has the potential to bring over one hundred new parking spaces to the zones covering Battle ward!  Good news :)

15 comments:

  1. I am at a loss as to how this can be welcomed as good news. One hundred new parking spaces means one hundred more cars so this merely increases the terrible problems of traffic congestion in Reading. Many flats were created in this area without the requisite car parking because of proximity to the town centre and the availability of public transport. Council policy states a clear intention to increase cycling yet in reality we have plans to increase car useage and to park cars closer to junctions which endangers cyclists and pedestrians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Fifth Gear
      Cars are a reality of everyday life and many residents will welcome this news. For some cycling is simply not an option. If you have concerns about the plans please submit them and they will be considered by officers and a reply made. If necessary the plans will be changed.

      Delete
  2. Cycling isn't an option for many because of the number of cars, the shoddy cycling infrastructure Reading is famous for, and the failure by Reading councillors to get behind any initiatives to encourage more people to cycle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello O Beecy Clett

      I think there are many other reasons why people don't cycle other than those mentioned above. I for one don't cycle because I use the bus and I need to transport children and large amounts of shopping. I believe the cycle hire scheme, new cycling strategy and even the changes to the Oxford Road will encourage more people to cycle but you have to remember people are allowed a choice - they don't have to cycle and remember that some can't! Reading is an old town. The roads and streets weren't designed for cars let alone cars, cycles & motorbikes etc. Positive suggestions are always welcomed.

      Delete
    2. In the Netherlands in the seventies the decision was made to prioritse cycling over car use. As a consequence streets exactly like those in Reading were made cycling friendly with the result that nearly everyone cycles from the age of 3 to 83. Most trips are short enough to cycle and it is a very attractive option if the streets are made safe and pleasant because it is an enjoyable, cheap, clean and healthy transport option suitable for almost everyone. Decisions to encourage motoring do not make sense if you seriously intend to give people the realistic choice to achieve the Cycling Strategy targets.

      Delete
    3. I believe walking is also an even cheaper and more environmentally friendly way to get about. It really is a case of a shared use approach in my opinion. We are considering drivers and cyclists in Battle at the moment along with pedestrians. All will get my attention.

      Delete
    4. Walking is fine but cycling is more convenient for slightly longer journeys. Shared use with pedestrians may be safe for cyclists but it is not convenient. In order to increase cycling use you need to make it safe and convenient and this has been done in the Netherlands by creating quiet streets without through traffic access and dedicated cycle paths on busier routes. You seem to imply that drivers deserve equal consideration with cyclists and pedestrians. If you think you can encourage significantly higher cycle rates with this approach you are mistaken and it seems to indicate that you simply do not take the stated aims of the Cycling Strategy seriously. To increase cycling use you must prioritise it over motor use and if councillors fail to take this on board the Cycle Strategy is meaningless.

      Delete
    5. I reperesent drivers, public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians. I think the fours camps need to work together to acheive a better future as none are going to go away. Out of the four I believe it's pedestrians that need the louder voice actually. There's no pedestrian forum and maybe there should be. They face danger from drivers, public transport and cyclists.

      Delete
    6. But everyone is better represented if you improve conditions for cyclists as that means motorists will use bicycles for shorter journeys and the number of cars on the road is reduced. The danger to cyclists and pedestrians is very similar and comes overwhelmingly from motorists. However the perception of risk by pedestrians, most of whom are motorists of course, is that they are more in danger from cyclists than motorists, which is completely wrong. You obviously don't like cycling and favour pedestrians but most cycling infrastructure in Reading involves getting cyclists to share with pedestrians which satisfies neither group. I would be interested to know how you think the Cycling Strategy to increase cycling levels in Reading will be achieved without prioritising cycling and taking space from motorists. Is it a vague aspiration or a firm committment which you intend to see through?

      Delete
    7. I don't dislike cycling or cyclists. My husband is a cyclist. I just don't want to do it personally much like I don't want to eat sprouts. The cycling strategy is taken seriously. You won't be happy until I say that cycling is the most important fom of transport. All forms of transport should be considered together. We all share the space. Also my perception of risk is based on my experience as a pedestrian, not a driver. I've never been hit by a car but I've been hit twice by a bike. All Road users need to respect each other equally.

      Delete
  3. Of course cars are a reality of everyday life. That is the problem. There are too many people using cars and that is why it is supposed to be council policy to encourage cycling wherever possible. Are these car spaces really for those people for whom cycling is not an option? Do you understand why it is council policy to increase cycling levels? Why do you approve of plans to increase motoring at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians? Is it just because you think it will be popular?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No - I don't publish it just because I think it will be popular. I represent many different types of resident. Parking is an issue and RBC are doing something to help. I can't see that people will rush out to buy more cars just because there are more spaces, it will just make their lives easier. I believe in choice. People can choose to drive and choose to cycle. On the other hand we are putting through improvement to the Oxford Road with a lot of thought having gone into making things easier for cyclists. I do know why cycling is being encouraged. As I said before, please make sure your concerns are passed on during the consultation.

      Delete
  4. It is obvious that more parking spaces means more cars unless you think the spaces will remain empty. You simply cannot say that you are encouraging cycle use on the one hand while you encourage motor use on the other. The policy in the Cycling Strategy to increase cycling levels significantly cannot possibly be realised until local Councillors like yourself fully appreciate the necessity to decide consistently in favour of sustainable transport over motor use. Of course people should have choice but it is a question of encouraging the best decision for the residents of Reading to reduce the problems of traffic congestion which seriously impair our quality of life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the reply.
    The reason most people give not cycling is that it is too dangerous. Adding more parked cars to the road will make it more dangerous, not less.
    The cycle hire (200 bikes, less than the number of new parking spaces) won't make the roads any safer
    People are not allowed the choice to cycle, the traffic in Reading intimidates them. Perhaps you should try cycling, to see for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't cycled since I was about 14 - I much prefer to walk short distances and with two children it's easier. I also use the bus because I don't fancy getting wet/cold cycling - it's a personal choice. I also drive. I am hoping that changes proposed for the Oxford Road will make cycling safer in the area. The plans are worth a look as a lot of feedback from cyclists has been taken into consideration esepcially regarding the bus lane by Bedford Road. As I have said above, I think shared use could be a way forward if traffic use of the Oxford Road reduces post the opening of the Cow Lane bridges.

      Delete