Railway plans and e-scooters – This weeks Redditch Standard letters
THIS weeks letters to the editor.
THE ‘Two Track Solution’ expressed in the Editor’s Comment in last week’s edition does correspond with council leader, Coun Dormer’s ‘dream’ of a better railway station for Redditch.
He expressed this plan over a year ago. However, Coun Dormer has failed to say how on earth his second track and platform will fit in the narrow strip of land west of the existing track towards Edward Street.
Many readers will remember when BBC’s Midland’s Today presenter Kay Alexander opened a ‘new’ Redditch Railway Station.
There were two tracks at that time – before Network Rail foolishly sold off land to form the housing development called Gloucester Close.
Returning to Coun Dormer’s ‘dream’, does Worcestershire County Council still have any plans at all to have two tracks coming into Redditch station at some time in the future? If so, when?
The current proposals will smarten up the area, but do not include (former Kingfisher Centre manager) Ken William’s ‘neglected bank’ on Unicorn Hill by the ring road flyover.
This eyesore, could, with proper horticultural management would become easy to maintain, be free-from perennial weeds, and be a welcoming sight to those arriving by train throughout the year.
And this steep bank does not need advertising hoardings!
Southcrest resident
REGARDING the public meeting on e-scooters (Redditch Standard).
From the language used by Bird ‘proud to have provided a safe and clean mode of transport to the people of Redditch’ and council leader, Coun Matt Dormer’s ‘Bird bringing e-scooters to residents has been a success over the past three years’ suggests all is well with e-scooters.
If I remember my physics correctly I suspect e-scooters have an inherent flaw.
As their axles are but a few millimetres from the ground, anyone riding such a scooter would not have to lean over very far, or be unsettled by potholes or uneven surfaces like man hole covers, before they are outside the e-scooter’s centre of gravity which can result in a person falling off.
Objects with a tall, thin profile fall over easily compared with low wide ones.
Could this be why there are so many e-scooter accidents? Department of Transport figures show nationally 229 pedestrians were injured in 2021 and 10 people died in accidents involving e-scooters.
E-scooters were introduced as a solution to the ‘last mile’ journey for example train to Redditch then an e-scooter to home and other similar short journeys to reduce car use.
This may be the case for some – these e-scooters have been used over 120,000 times in three years – an average of about 110 uses a day.
In reality, they have become a plaything for some.
E-scooters are ridden on the pavement, at times with two people on board, by people under 18, by people without a driving licence (does this invalidate any insurance Bird may have?) and are left on the pavement, posing a trip hazard.
I question the wisdom of helmets not being needed when e-scooters can reach 12 to 15mph.
Banging your head on a pavement at 12mph is not going to end well.
If a helmet was required I suspect this would have an impact on the Bird e-scooter commercial viability. Is this an example of commercial interest over safety?
The Bird e scooters also ‘camouflage’ other privately purchased e-scooters used illegally in town.
Despite Bird and Coun Dormer’s positive comments, letters to the Standard about e-scooters seem overwhelmingly of a negative point of view.
In some respects it does not matter if the e-scooter is a Bird or an illegal one, nationally e-scooters have resulted in injury and death.
The concept of clean, safe and economical transport is welcomed and e-scooters may be a solution but the experiment has highlighted issues that must be addressed.
BB
Hunt End
I LOOKED at the new station plans and was concerned that the ticket office and waiting room are on a first floor level.
How do people with walking difficulties get their tickets? (Escalators and lifts – if they’re working – are as difficult as walking).
The height of the roof will require more heating of the space, or the height will mean the warmth is above our heads.
I would prefer a ground floor waiting room and ticket office at platform level, stretching along the platform.
Why do I keep hearing we need a second line? We are a terminus.
There will only be one train in the station at any one time.
Trains will never be less than 20 minutes apart. Plenty of time to clear the line to Alvechurch.
A second platform will just be confusing and more difficult for passengers to access.
The new station looks glossy but is not fit for purpose – which should be to make trains easy and comfortable to use.
Also, what is the point of a glossy station if you are then confronted by the ugly and steep staircase lurking behind monolithic brick pillars giving access to the Kingfisher Centre and a dark and gloomy bus station?
This is where we need the improvement. Likewise, an attractive Unicorn Hill – I hear there are changes planned but have seen none of these.
Looks like another panicky spend for little gain.
I have submitted alternative plans.
M Bish
Abbeydale