| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re::CPZ meeting 26/01/11 | |
| Posted by: | Michael Brown | |
| Date/Time: | 03/02/11 16:41:00 |
| I take your point, Adam, and I think they are wrong. If you take a drive out to the Reading area, for example, you’ll soon find residential estates where there is roadside parking, drives, garages etc; basically lots of places to park in, and there is never a parking problem; because when the estate was designed, adequate parking provision was made. And you never see such roads congested. Adequate parking provision will always be at the expense of a number of properties, so without adequate parking facilities, there would be far more properties, far more people with cars, and little place to park them in. Outcome: Same problem as we have here. Yet some people seriously expect us to believe that the answer to parking problems is to provide inadequate parking. Of course, many of the roads/houses in this area were built when parking wasn’t a problem so we have to try and adapt as best we can, but the principles described above remain the same. I don’t buy in to the environment/green issues. Motorists of your ‘Reading’ residential estate, where there are less properties, people and cars per any given unit of area than around here, will come and go without any problems, almost going unnoticed. Here, having more properties, people and cars and less places to park them in, we have roads full of cars, whether parked or in motion, giving out more C02 than you’ll ever see in Reading. So to say that building even more properties around here without any parking facilities will help parking and be ‘green’ is a nonsense. |