Hoe much congestion and traffic problems are caused by public transport and bikes ?

I am fairly lucky in the mornings with the short journey I have to take. I travel five miles with virtually no deviation or turn offs until I reach my school. I travel along an A road, and there are no roundabouts to overcome. However, every day, on my way to school and my way home, I suffer along with scores of other drivers, from sitting in traffic queues caused by buses and bikes.

Along the length of the A road I drive there are bus stops every few hundred metres, however, there are only about three of these bus stops have actual lay-bys for the buses to pull in to. This means every time the buses stop, the traffic has to stop too. In some place, special islands have been built in the road also to stop people overtaking buses that have pulled up. If I am unlucky enough to be behind a bus, it add 5-10 minutes to what should only be a 10 minute journey in to work. Okay, this is a relatively small amount of time. But my car measures my fuel economy. Today on the way to work I got stuck, again, about three cars behind a bus. My miles per gallon for my journey was 21.1 mpg. On a clear day it is 31.2 mpg. So in the first instance buses, or the idiots who place bus stops without creating lay-bys, are reducing the fuel efficiency of cars. Well done to them !

Then there is the issue of bikes. Coming out of the city this afternoon, I was stuck behind a cyclist who decided that biking in the the left of the lane, near to the curb was too much of an inconvenience. This cyclist, like so many others, decided that their bike was in fact a car, and decided to ride almost in the middle of the road. This may not have been so bad if they had stuck to this. but they had only got ahead of me by sneaking down the side of my car (he was prepared to get tight to the curb then) when I was at a set of traffic lights. Then, once in front of me at the lights, he plodded along, nice and slow, with me and several hundred other cars stuck behind him doing about 16 miles per hour. With the lane on the other side of the road very busy, this means we all plodded along at 16 miles per hour, unable to overtake, for about a mile until the road widened and we could get past. Again, my fuel economy fell through the floor, and a traffic jam was caused by an idiot on a bike.

With the latest government guidance on cycle paths saying they should not be separate from the road, but with people on bikes thinking they own the road and don't share it with others, you have to ask sometimes whether there is not a deliberate effort sometimes by cyclists just to cause traffic jams so they can look smug.

If I did a job which meant I could travel light (i.e. no multiple heaps of books to mark, no laptop to carry, no sports kit to change in to, etc), I might want to use the bus. Indeed, it is hard to argue with the principle of bus use or even riding bikes. But as things stand, buses and bikes do not happily co-exist with cars on roads. Planners, and in particular planning guidance from government ought to note this and roads should be designed, altered and modified to take this in to account. Oh, and cyclists should be told to take cycling proficiency tests and learn to share the roads with others.

Surely hard shoulders were built for a reason ?

The government's cheap solution to motorway congestion seems so obvious and simple, were it not for one obvious fact.

Hard shoulders were built for a reason. That reason was for emergency purposes, be it a car breaking down or as a means of access for emergency services in the event of a road accident. If the hard shoulder was a fourth lane, surely it would be called a "fourth lane" and not a hard shoulder ?

Whatever will be next on the government's list of ways of using existing things for other tasks, I mean, its not as if these things, like hard shoulders, are not there for a reason.

My top suggestions are :

1) If ambulances pass a bus stop in rush hour they should stop to pick up any passengers who might need to be going in the direction of the accident. This would save the council having to subsidise inadequate bus services.

2) Hospitals should be encouraged to put up "Vacancies" signs outside so that any spare beds might be filled by businessmen in search of a Travel Lodge.

3) Royal Navy vessels might be used to quickly transport lorries across the channel to clear backlogs after French transport strikes.

4) Spare RAF aircraft could be used to fly holiday makers abroad at busy times of the year.

5) Land around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus could be turned in to a rather lovely holiday resort.

6) Air Ambulances could also double up as "Eye in the sky" traffic news reporters for local radio.

When the "eco" dream fails to make sense

We are told, in in part I agree, that in an ideal world we wouldn't need cars. An integrated public transport network will get us from A to B quickly, cheaply and easily with the minimum of carbon output and everyone is happy. The problem is, this would never work for some people. Let me tell you why.

I have the flu. I've had it since Tuesday. I have to go out every other day to buy more paracetamol because if I but two packets at the same time I am told I can only buy one packet because the staff in Tesco think I am going to kill myself (apparently that's why you can no longer but 50 paracetamol in bottles like you used to be able to do), so I go every other day to get them. That's not a great problem as I can walk the several hundred metres to Tesco. however, on Thursday, in the snow, I had a problem. I was trembling cold with a fever, I was out of breath every few steps, and the only way I could face leaving the house was to get in my car and drive the few hundred metres. I know, I'm terrible, but physically, it was all I could manage to do.

But then I come to today. I needed to go to a chemist. The nearest one that was open was on the edge of Norwich. If I had wanted to get a bus I would have had to wait in the cold for 15 minutes (not good when you still have a fever), get on a busy bus, and infect god knows how many other people with my flu, cough and cold, then get off, then walk another mile in the cold to the chemist, then, I'd have to do it in reverse.

To be honest, it was arduous enough and too physically demanding really to do it in a car. I came home and had to go to sleep, such is my frail state at the moment, but it shows me very clearly why people who say "you don't need a car" are so wrong.

Sometimes, I need, and I mean, I REALLY NEED, my car. The last few days with both my wife and I both having the flu has shown just how reliant I am on it and shows that the vision of a car free society can never be achieved. A nice goal, but there are times when you cannot live with out a car.

No return fares in Norwich - Another scam from First Bus

First bus, the company famous in the Norwich area for their poor time keeping, rudeness and dirty buses have come up with a great new plan to further annoy local people. Bizarrely, they are scrapping return tickets !

The principle of a return ticket is to provide a discount which encourages people back on to buses and avoid them seeking other methods of transport home. The problem is in Norwich that there are no alternative methods other than a car or taxi, so the only thing this will encourage is more people using taxi's rather than thinking that they've already paid for a bus home so they may aswell use it.

This is a scam, plain and simple. First Bus might want to dress it up or come up with excuses, but anyone with even half a brain knows the truth. It is already cheaper for myself and my wife to drive a car in to Norwich and park for several hours than it is for the two of us to get the bus. This will make it even more cheaper to use the car.

Why would you pay that much to go on a bus in Norwich ?

Having been to the football today (what an awful performance by Norwich), I am shocked just how much it costs for two people to get a return bus ticket in to the City.

If we drove in we could park for 4 hours for about £6.00 whilst it would cost about £1.50 for the fuel. Compare this to the £6.80 it cost to go on the bus. A saving of just 70 pence !

If we are really to get people out of cars and on to public transport then we need not only to make the public transport reliable, we need to make it financially advantageous to do so.

I will continue to use the bus as often as possible, but I can quite understand why lots of people don't. It is, perhaps, one of the reasons why my politics are Lib Dem in that the party has real policies for promoting cheaper and more reliable integrated public transport.

Norwich International Airport - What terror alert ?

I heard yet another example yesterday of a story that the local press (printed and broadcast) have missed.

My parents phoned up Norwich Airport to enquire what they could and couldn't take with them in luggage when they go on holiday in a few weeks time. Nobody answered the phone. So they went to the airport to find out, and they said "Sorry, we had some sheets photocopied with the information on, but we have given them all out". My parents asked if they could print another one out. "No, we haven't got a photocopier !".

So my parents returned home with no information, were offered no help and are now very confused. Surely, in the current security environment airports should have this information for travellers.

As to the press, are they reporting that Norwich Airport are not giving people information, are not answering their phones and are not photocopying information sheets ? Come on local journalists, get reporting !