Norwich traffic chaos gets worse

Yesterday afternoon I had to go in to Norwich. A five mile journey took 55 minutes at 1.30 in the afternoon (not exactly a rush hour). When I got there, virtually every car park was full, and to be honest, the hassle meant I would go elsewhere to shop if I possible could.

Now I explained why Norwich's roads are in such a mess at the moment a few weeks ago with both Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council seemingly conspiring to make every journey in to Norwich impossible from the North of the City.  Since the, however, things have got worse. One of the main routes in to Norwich from the North, the Fakenham Road, is closed both ways. This means that buses from Fakenham, Drayton and Taverham (my area) have to be diverted, adding a lot of extra time to the journey and in doing so putting lots of people off using the bus (me included). On top of this though, they authorities have made things even worse by closing Castle Meadow in the centre of Norwich. This road is almost exlusively used by buses, with there being dozens of bus stops along this road. This means bus routes have been altered, again causing people to given up on buses and go by car instead. This explains why there is vitually nowhere to park in the city at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that doing four major road closures, all at the same time in Norwich is ridiculous, but seemingly Norwich City  (run by Labour) and the the Coutny Council (Tory run) can't work it out !

Who decided to mess up traffic in Norwich North ?

You have to marvel at the stupidity of those responsible for scheduling major road works on three separate junctions and roads in the North of Norwich all at the same time as each other.

On the Fakenham (A1067) in to Norwich, traffic can come in to Norwich only (not out), whilst they have also decided to close access to Norwich from the alternative Aylsham (Cromer) Road (A140) at St Augustines (putting in a new route which is causing major traffic problems), and also reducing the number of lanes at Mile Cross Road from two to one.

In short, they have introduced three roads schemes all at the same time ensuring maximum disruption.

I suppose there might be those who argue that it is better to wreck traffic movement in Norwich at one time rather than stagger the road changes, but each of the changes in themselves are manageable, but put together they are ridiculous.

Is it time for Norfolk County Council to change their road contractors ?

Less than a year ago a mini roundabout was completely resurfaced near where I live. This was several days work, caused a lot of disruption, but was accepted by local people in Thorpe Marrott as necessary in order to prevent the roundabout deteriorating.

So what's the problem ? It already has a pothole ! Now I understand how pot holes happen. The BBC gave a helpful if slightly patronising explanation half way down THIS story, but for this to happen on a newly resurfaced and rebuilt piece of road smacks of some very bad workmanship. I have reported the pothole, but given that previous potholes reported weeks ago have not been fixed, their pledge to do the work within seven days seems innaccurate.

This wouldn't be so bad if it were a one off, but last year I tore my tyre very badly on a pothole on a newly resurfaced and rebult piece of road between Drayton and Costessey when my tyre tore of a lothole almost a yard in length. Of course, Norfolk County Council said they were not liable because they had not been previously notified of the fault. My question to them at the time was why on earth was their such sever damage to a new piece of road that had only been re-opened a month earlier ?

Given that it appears to be a running theme of work done by Norfolk County Council or their contractors, are Norfolk County Council really spending our money wisely ?

Have Sat-Navs made road sign makers lazy ?

Having spent the last few days on a mini break near Windsor without a sat nav, I am left wondering whether the sheer volume of people owning sat nav systems has made those responsible for putting up road signs forget that there are some of us who do not use sat navs and actually rely upon signs.

I'll give you a couple of examples. Upon leaving Legoland on Friday we could turn left signposted for Windsor and the M4 (the way we came and lots of traffic) or right, which was signposted M4 Alternative route. As we wanted the M4, we thought we'd turn tight. After a while, we reached a roundabout which had one junction shown on the sign as M4. So we followed this road for another two miles, came to a roundabout, drove around it several times looking vain for any sign which the said M4. Not one did. So the directions simply dried up. It's like getting the instructions to a piece of flatpack furniture only to find that everything after the third instruction is missing.

Then there was trying to get back on to the M25 today. Driving along from where we were staying it told me to turn left if I wanted to go on the M25 South. Since I didn't, I stayed on the road. So having stayed on the road, was there a sign saying M25 North ? Was there hell. No, looking back at the map it appears the road sign should have said M25 North and South, but it didn't.

Now I know I am getting older and I have no aversion to sat navs. I simply don't own one because I have got around the country quite happily before without needing one. But I, like many others, rely on decent signing on the way, and lots of what I have seen over the last few days seems to be there just to conform to legal requirements but does not actually tell you what you need to know.

A mixed message from Leicestershire County Council ?

On Thursday night I listened to Radio Five on the way home from work. On the show they were interviewing the Tory leader of Leicestershire County Council who, in what seemed to me an attempt to win populist support, had said teachers who cannot make it to school because of the bad snow should go unpaid for those days unless they have made a "reasonable attempt" to get to school. This typical "teacher bashing" comment might win votes from people angry that their local school is closed because of bad weather, but the Council leader's statement failed to properly quantify what a "reasonable attempt" was.

Given the leader of the council was making such a strong statement about teachers, one might imagine that Leicestershire County Council was itself making a "reasonable attempt" to keep all its roads open. However, a Leicestershire County Councillor was on the radio yesterday morning complaining that Leicestershire County Council was itself asking for efficiency savings from its road gritting department which would mean cuts in its budget for gritting next year.

So on one hadn the leader of the council is telling teachers their pay will be docked for missing school and on the other the council are looking at reducing its own ability to keep roads open . Very odd indeed.

A scheme I am amazed our government has not copied

The Italians have a novel way of making extra money from motorists. They not only install camera's to photograph drivers jumping traffic lights, but they alter the speed of the intervals between the lights changing to different colours in order to confuse drivers and increase the number of fines.

Read about it HERE.

I am astonished our government have not copied this idea given their willingness to use cover the country in speed cameras.

The wonder of Norfolk County Council highways department

A road near me has been closed for some weeks whilst Norfolk County Highways made road improvements in order to improve safety and the road conditions.

So imagine my delight when driving over the new speed bump this evening that they have put in to find that the puddle on the other side was not a puddle but was, instead, a deep hole which immediately punctured my tyre !

It seems astonishing that they could do such a poor job of a road improvement.

I shall be out photographing the road and the hole and will be sending my bill for the new tyre to Norfolk County Council.

Where are the traffic police ?

The government today announced plans to increase punishments for drivings who break the speed limits by a considerable margin, and it is hard to argue against the logic behind this decision. However, it does smack of the government wanting to further promote speed cameras at a time when traffic police numbers continue to decline.

The AA today claimed that traffic police numbers had fallen by 20% in ten years, and I wouldn't disagree. it is rare that you see a police car on the road and this means that persistent speeders and those who know where the speed cameras are can go about their dangerous antics on a daily basis knowing that they will almost certainly never be caught.

Every morning I am cut up and overtaken by a motorbike on the Fakenham Road in to Norwich at just about 8am. The same thing happens every day as he weaves through moving traffic, overtaking and undertaking in excess of 50mph. But where are the police to deal with him ? Of course they are never seen. The fact that I know this motorbike so well, an Orange track bike with the number plate beginning V5? ??? (and yes, I know the last missing digits also) tells you something about the regularity of this bike's antics, but he knows, like me, that the chances of a police car doing something about it is nil, and there are no speed cameras on my route to work.

If the government really means to do something about this, they should encourage police forces to take on more traffic police. Oh, and get them to also do something about slow drivers too !

No "Views from the River End" Today thanks to Norwich's roads

Some of you will know that I have another blog which covers issues relating to Norwich City Football Club. Unfortunately, there will be little in the way of views for me today thanks to Norwich's truly awful road network.

Today, on my journey in to Norwich (only 7 miles to the car park than a one mile walk), the roads were gridlocked all around the northern part of the inner ring road meaning I moved about 80 yards in 40 minutes in one road and about 30 yards in 20 minutes on another road. The dawning realisation that it was likely to turn what should have been a journey of no longer than 20 minutes in to a 90 minute journey led me to do a u-turn and get out of Norwich and home (which actually took just 12 minutes).

If anyone has ever been to Norwich you will know what truly awful roads we have. They are designed to encourage road rage, constantly switching from two lanes to one lane, placing bus stops so as to stop traffic flow whilst the traffic light seems constantly to be breaking down.

Whilst the junctions I came to today that were snarled up did have working traffic lights, what was desperately needed was a policeman to direct traffic, stop people driving in to and stopping in yellow boxed areas (which is illegal anyway) , and use a human mind to sort out the problems that traffic lights cannot detect. Sadly, at each junction there was no policeman to be seen.

Then what do you think I saw pulled up by the side of the road on my way home ? I didn't see a speed gun in the police officer's hand, but it did make me wonder what the police were doing parked up in the countryside when Norwich was so snarled up.

What ever sort of parent ... (again)

I am sure most of you saw the sad news of the death of a seven year old child on Christmas Day who died whilst out riding her new quad bike. A tragedy, of course, for her family and friends. however, it does lead me to ask some very serious questions.

1) Why was a seven year old girl riding a 100cc quad bike ?
2) Why did her father (who was in the car in front) think that this was a good idea to drive in front of his children on a main road ?
3) What ever sort of parent thinks that spending £1200 on a brand new quad bike for a seven year old is a good idea ?
4) Why were they out riding in the dark ?

The greatest kindness a parent can say sometimes is "no" and some parents need to accept that they have a responsibility to protect their children, in many cases from themselves. Children do not, in many cases, have the self discipline to stop, some lack an awareness of their own mortality and most can be very impulsive. It might not always make the parent popular, but they do need to learn to make sensible choices that ultimately mean their kids are safe. In this case, I cannot believe that the little girl's parents did this.

What ever sort of parent ...

I was amazed yesterday when in Diss (South Norfolk) to see just how many children were riding around on modified BMX bikes, which have no brakes.

During one short walk I saw one boy fall from his bike as he swerved to avoid a car reversing out of a driveway. He had to fall off because he had no brakes. He and his mates thought it a great laugh, but this is another case of parents just ignoring their children and their responsibility to ensure their children are safe.

Perhaps for the kid in question, it "isn't cool" to have brakes. Perhaps for the parents, they don't want to start a row, but to my mind, it's just plain bloody stupid to let a child out without brakes on their bike.

New Government law on road signs will lead to deaths

I have been informed that a new law on roads signs is likely to lead to an increase in roads deaths in rural villages across Norfolk and in other counties as repeater signs in 30mph zones will no longer be allowed in areas with street lighting. This means that local County Councils will have to waste council tax payers money by getting the signs removed.

Is there any good reason for this move by the government ? Why shouldn't motorists be warned that they are in a 30mph zone ? Why should councils waste money to take down existing signs ? How will this help improve road safety ?

Answer on a postcard please to the transport minister.

Road Charging : Will the whole report be read or just selective bits ?

There has been something of a furore about today's report issed by Rod Eddington about road pricing.

I have written on this blog before about making sure that alternatives are in place before road pricing schemes are introduced. it is, after all, not fair to tax someone more for driving somewhere if there are no alternative roads and no public transport options.

The thing that worries me most though about the reports is not the road pricing option. It is that a future government will notice that the report supports road pricing but fails to acknowledge that Rod Eddingtons report calls for the virtual elmination of taxation on fuel and car tax.

I can see a point where a government will see road pricing as an option and simply implement it as another tax, and therefore as another stream of income.

Norwich Northern Bypass = Planned traffic chaos

The proposals published today by Conservative run Norfolk County Council for the new Northern Bypass, or NDR as it is called, are detailed and answer some questions. However, the plans fail in one key area, that being that it is not a bypass ! Read the EDP report HERE.

The failure to include the final link joining from the Fakenham Road to the Southern Bypass means that the new road will deposit many thousands of extra cars each day in to Taverham and Drayton, and once there, there will be no final link up to the Southern by-pass, thus forcing all these cars through the narrow roads of Ringland, Honingham and Costessey.

It is simply not good enough for the Tories running county hall to come up with a solution to a smaller problem North and East of the city to then create a bigger problem to the North West. Yes, there are environmental concerns, but what about the concerns of residents in the areas that will be most affected.

How will people from Fakenham and North Norfolk get to the Southern bypass. Simple, they’ll go the old way, through the villages, as they always have, because driving clockwise round the NDR to Postwick to join the A47 is a 40 mile round trip. It isn’t going to happen, and trying to force people to do so is hardly going to help the environment. We need a proper by-pass that links the whole NDR on both sides to the Southern by-pass. This plan from County Hall is what can be called simply planned traffic chaos or planning blight !

Norwich congestion charge - Are the alternatives ready ?

The Eastern Daily Press reports today on the £500,000 study on whether to introduce a congestion charge in Norwich. Whilst I have been vocal in my support of environmentally friendly measures, there are question marks over this scheme, particularly for those of us living North of the city.

Firstly, if you are going to introduce a congestion charge in order to keep people out of certain parts of the city, is there an alternative route or alternative mode of transport to take ? It's no use pricing people out of travelling through Norwich if this instead forces us down already congested minor roads which cannot take the existing levels of traffic.

It is also interesting to note from the report that First Bus are keen to be involved because of the potential for a gain in passenger numbers that they may have. However, what about those villages with no bus service ? What about using money from the congestion charge to subsidise buses and make them more attractive (Norfolk County Council under the Tories has cut subsidies drastically for many bus services to rural villages). And wasn't it First Bus who just a fortnight ago said they were scrapping return fares ? First Bus are not exactly a firm to be trusted on this matter.

I would favour a system which rewards those people who drive more environmentally friendly cars with low emissions and that are more easily recycled when they come to the end of their natural life. I think this really gives people a choice. If they want a big gas guzzler, then they've made that choice.

So whilst I welcome anything that will encourage a more environmentally friendly future for Norwich, we must give people a decent alternative to driving in to the City. You can't simply tax them for something that they have to do. People have to earn a living and if they have no public transport in their village or no alternative roads so they cannot avoid driving through the city, particulary North of Norwich where there is no by-pass, then a congestion charge in these circumstances is not fair.

How can they close the A47 Acle straight and the rail ink at the same time ?

One can only imagine how many people it took to agree the decision to close the A47 for resurfacing work whilst at the same time the rail link between Norwich and Great Yarmouth will also be closed.

Added to this, the work clashes with the week-long half-term, a busy time for Great Yarmouth and a last opportunity to get tourists in to the town before the tourist attractions close for the winter.

I cannot imagine why the rail and road links must both be closed together or why this work could not have been scheduled to be done at different times.

The Northern Distributor Road - The issue that separates the haves and have-nots

The Northern Distributor Road (NDR) is an often talked about issue in Norfolk, and it gets people on both sides of the argument very passionate. However, it strikes me that those who are in favour of it are nearly always the "have-nots" and those against are the "haves". Let me explain.

In Norwich, there are some who have good regular public transport. Some of those people in Norwich cannot understand why people in the countryside need a car, after all, "Why can't they use public transport ?". Those country dwelling "have nots" also don't have services on their door steps, they don't have a wide array of shops nearby, garages, pubs, restaurants, Post Offices, cinemas or theatres. These are things that the "have's" have got.

So why is it then that the "haves" in the city fail to understand the need for the "have nots" to own a car, to drive in to the City, or indeed, to by-pass the city if they need to get to the other side.

Some in the city who oppose the NDR claim there is no need for it. If this is the case, why is there already an unoffical NDR already running from Spixworth (down Crostwick Lane), through St Faith's, Horsford, Drayton and Costessey ? Those who oppose the NDR seek to close their eyes to the facts.

The other argument they give is that when new reoads are built, they get more traffic using them. My answer is, that is why the new road has been built. After all, if there was no traffic need for the road then it would not have been built in the first place. I simply cannot buy in to the "Green" view that when a new road is built people choose to go out and have some pointless destination-less drive on it simply because it is a new road. Driving is far too expensive a thing to do these days to do that.

I get fed up with "Greens", and I mean that in the political sense, not simply environmentalists, who seek to lecture the people who live in the rest of the County as to why the NDR is not needed whilst they nejoy all the fruits and benefits of having everything on their doorsteps in Norwich. Of course they don't want the NDR, they represent innner city council wards where the NDR is not an issue.

The fact remains that outside of the city, and in particular this has been shown in local election results, those who oppose the NDR have been absolutely trounced, time and time again. They claim that there is no support for the NDR, but my experience of living in Horsford, Taverham and Fakenham is very much the opposite.