|
|
 |
| |
A not-in-my-backyard element to 393 bus debate
• IT is pleasant to take a glance at the letters section and find a few Route 393 supporters, especially one living right on Leighton Road!
The Leighton Road Neighbourhood Association may be inclined to raise their stance against the route, but the route is starting to prove itself as an ineffable and wise decision on behalf of both Transport for London and Ken Livingstone.
There is a common “not in my backyard” mentality flying about in this whole debate.
Granted, I’m not the one that spent untold hours standing out in front of the Kentish Town Tube station taking head-counts of those on the 393; but I feel as though taking statistics on a new route won’t give much accurate correspondence to someone who’s biased to begin with.
I appreciate the gesture from Leighton Road’s Neighbourhood Association, but I feel their over-assertive stance on this whole issue causes reluctance among some possible 393 passengers to avoid the trouble altogether.
Personally, I think we (supporters of the 393) should have our own meeting with Mr. Livingstone to give him a pat on the back and to ask him to permanently place the 393 route through Leighton Road.
It’s true, however, that the majority of the traffic problems on Leighton Road are from careless parking of private vehicles. I can barely count on my hands how many times I have seen cars parked in the exact spot where the temporary bus stop has been placed (in front of Leighton Food and Wine).
While all residents should be entitled to their parking privileges, they should also exercise this right with caution and care.
Without such careless acts, there wouldn’t be any situation the police would need to be involved with on the 393 route.
The more support I see for it in the papers is easily reflected by the amount of passengers I see using the 393. I find the signs up in windows capriciously placed to try to derail people from using the route. It’s a joke, really, to see people pull what seems to be selfishness over a route going in front of their homes.
If it were the case, let’s close all routes through most major residential areas as a whole. Extravagant, but that’s what the desire to keep the 393 from remaining sounds like.
Those who feel intimidated by the tactics of residents of Leighton Road, fear not. Their bark is mightier than their bite. Those who aim to get to Chalk Farm, or even in the opposite direction from Leighton Road, hop on and give it a go!
DAVID MORGAN
Leighton Crescent, NW5
It’s a boon
• SUE Prickett’s letter (Opposition to 393 bus route will be a long haul, November 15) opposes the routing of the 393 bus along Leighton Road.
I cannot understand why the Leighton Road Neighbourhood Association is objecting.
What about heavy lorries and builders trucks carrying cranes and cement mixers which regularly traverse the road? Why are they not directing their efforts to banning those?
I regularly walk along Leighton Road four times a day and I have never observed any problems with the buses, which incidentally are quiet running new single deckers.
The new bus route is a boon to elderly people – stop trying to take it away from us.
Agar Grove is a long way from where we live.
A POTTER
Greenwood Sheltered Scheme
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
