Forum Topic

Adrian made the point that cars take up a lot of space - I was agreeing with him.We had a small, narrow road - one way in places - which was regularly gridlocked, preventing cars and buses from traversing and was dangerous as well - I witnessed numerous "I've got right of way" standoffs, been at the receiving end of vans and cars refusing to wait and forcing me to reverse and know one person who was seriously hurt in a car crash under the bridge.  Now Fishers Lane is a priority bus route with spare capacity.  Buses travel through without restriction or delay. Cycling has also increased and it isn't unusual to see young kids on bikes cycling through, which would have been unthinkable before.Traffic congestion on nearby roads has not got noticeably worse (apparently it has improved on South Parade) and the predicted gridlock hasn't happened.Public transport is far more efficient than cars in transporting people.  Bikes and foot traffic use a fraction of the road space as well.As it turns out, Fisher's Lane wasn't usually the most direct through route anyway and more of a Chipster route, so through traffic is more direct now.  You can campaign to take away road space from buses and bikes, but that comes at a cost of lower reliability and speed for public transport users, increased congestion, increased air pollution, increased CO2 emissions and increased injuries to other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.I would ask why you want to do that when you've hardly been inconvenienced and can still drive your car half a mile to the shops if you want to and you now have much better options to take the bus, walk or cycle if you prefer.

Ed Saper ● 1690d