Bell type bollard

Goudy

I can understand traffic calming on certain roads under certain conditions, but it's a give way to a main road. Traffic would likely be stopped or preparing to stop, why pinch the junction up like that?

All they have done is created a bottle neck on that road/junction for traffic moving in and out of that road for what?

So now if traffic wants to come in and out of that junction at the same time, the chances of it backing the main road up are a certainty.

So now there's too much traffic on Parnell Road and they now have to do something about that, and on and on it goes to the next road and the one after that.

flaneurs_lobster

"backing the main road up" & "created a bottle neck" = calmer traffic.

Job done.

Goudy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061160#Comment_82061160

As someone that lives and drives in this area I'm positive that traffic isn't calmer, but that's the world we live in now. Spending years living with other peoples mistakes.

flaneurs_lobster

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061175#Comment_82061175

I lived in that area for 20+ years. My car in that time did something less than 20k miles.

Because it's not essential to have a car for city-centre living, in fact only 30% of households in Tower Hamlets have a car. Why should the 70% be somehow less important than the people in metal boxes?

The mistakes were made generations ago, when urban planners gave priority to the car over all other forms of transport.

Baldytyke88

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061175#Comment_82061175

The OP will certainly learn something from this experience.

Herzlos

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061160#Comment_82061160

Calmer just means slower in this context i.e. less likely to kill a pedestrian.

It's got nothing to do with how zen the driver is feeling.

Goudy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061669#Comment_82061669

There could be an argument that these attempts at calming traffic don't calm the drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for safer environments but these traffic schemes do tend to crowd user all onto the same roads which are getting fewer and fewer.

And as for not essential to drive in a city, that's a pretty weak and thoughtless statement and a hopeless argument to defend.

I need to drive for my job, unless you want your public funds wasted and I reduce my output to around 15 to 20% of what is currently is. Same goes for my partner and son. We already suffer longer days than we are paid for to complete our work, mainly due to traffic. It's not ideal but there is no other way without a car or van and we all work in the public sector.

Also, why should there be a tiered system? Why should 100% of people in cities be treated any differently to anyone else? Why is it okay for some to own a car and not others based on where they live? Yes it might not be essential, but the same could be said of lots of others living in different parts of the country.

There are also other reasons why some don't have a car rather than choosing not to own one that are more relevant to somewhere like Tower Hamlets, like ownership costs. It is after all the poorest borough in London with over 40% of it's residents in low income households.

Oddly, anyone east of Tower Halmets has to pay to cross the Thames, yet anyone west doesn't, plus there are schemes like congestion charging. They are penalised financially to drive in cities to make a living when they have no choice.

To say it's convenient to drive in London couldn't be further from the truth, it's not by a long long way and there are good alternatives for some. I actually do very little miles in London in my own car, same as my son and partner. They are mainly used to get out of London and go to places that you seem to think people should be allowed to drive in.

Yet the roads you are still allowed to drive on are crammed full. There's a reason for both of these things. One is they want the roads around here crammed full to implement a city wide congestion scheme and the other is they have no other choice.

Mildly_Miffed

@Goudy said…
"Oddly, anyone east of Tower Halmets has to pay to cross the Thames, yet anyone west doesn't"

Can you explain what you mean there?

The Woolwich ferry is still free.

And, of course, all the free ones are free regardless of where somebody lives… while the charge ones are charge regardless of home address.

Perhaps it's simply that the river is wider, so the crossings are more involved?

Goudy

They used private finance to build the Silvertown tunnel and that has a fee to use it.

As this new tunnel is next to the Blackwall tunnel, they introduced a fee on the Blackwall because, and this is stated by TFL. No one would use the Silvertown tunnel if the Blackwall remained free.

So for no other reason, they put a charge on a major crossing that linked East London (not the most affluent area) with South London (again, not the most affluent area) and Kent. It's not like it needed to be paid for. The LLC as it was back then actually sat on the money allocated for this tunnel for nearly 20 years before they even started to build it.

Yes, the Woolwich ferry remains free. Though it is not a reliable alternative to any of the other crossings. It's regularly out of action, it's capacity and operating times are limited as it does not operate 24 hours a day.

So it's not comparable to the Blackwall and it certainly isn't a viable alternative, though it is another example of creating a pinch point in the traffic. Since this version of the Blackwall tunnel opened in 1967 had been free until last year.

It stands to reason if you live in areas around these crossings, so East and South East London, you would be more inclined to have reason to use these crossings regularly. You may have to use them for work and have to pay between £1.50 off peak and up to £10 peak for a HGV.

A car at peak is £4* each way or if you consider a working year, close to £2000 for something that was already paid for and has been free close to 60 years and no, the distance between the banks of the Thames haven't increased in that time.

All the other crossing of the Thames west of the Blackwall are free to use. So why doesn't East London/South East London have a viable free crossing?

Could it be that the plan is two fold or do you think it's just a coincidence that apart from raking in millions of fees and fines from these crossings, they actually want to send traffic west towards the centre and the free crossings, unnecessarily adding traffic and congestion in that area, which they will then claim they need to introduce more measures to tackle, perhaps expanding the Congestion Charge to within the M25, something they are talking about already.

These schemes (and schemings) aren't just Londoncentric. Other Cities and Towns are starting to catch on, just look around. They will all start with road planning schemes pushing you to use certain roads and routes via road closings, pinch points and the likes. Then they start to make noise about having to tackle that problem they created.

(* both increase to £4.20 in September, so now over £2000 a year if you use it every working day)

Herzlos

"There could be an argument that these attempts at calming traffic don't calm the drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for safer environments but these traffic schemes
do tend to crowd user all onto the same roads which are getting fewer and fewer.

And as for not essential to drive in a city, that's a pretty weak and thoughtless statement and a hopeless argument to defend."

I don't entirely disagree, though it needs a much more hollistic approach to improve safety for vulnerable users, reasonable access for those who need access, and improved air conditions for everyone.

I'd like to see a top-down review of all of the road/transport needs for an area and improvements to public transport and paths that ideally reduce the number of unnecessary car journeys so that parking spaces and road capacity is available for those that actually do need it. And that also involves stuff like ensuring there are van spaces on most streets to accomodate tradesfolk, delivieries, etc.

I know far too many people who'll drive a quarter mile to visit somewhere, and no amount of improved infrastructure would prevent them, but for many others having public transport or walking routes that are more convenient than cars will yield huge results.

For example in Edinburgh the park and rides are pretty good, so you can drive to edge of the city, park, hop on a tram or bus that's every few minutes. It takes maybe 10 minutes longer but is less hassle IF you're near a stop. It also means 1 less car going through the city and trying to get parked.