Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error
5 Pages123>»
Declutter Redbridge Streets ?
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie
#1 Posted : 29 January 2008 17:58:03(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
What has been allowed to happen to the streets? everywhere we go there are increased signs, barriers, road markings and speed humps.

There are more traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and kerb buildouts, Barkingside High street amongst others comes to a virtual standstill.

Traffic forms long queues due to mistimed lights, (Elmbridge Rd, New North Rd, junction the Lowe) and still planners want to continue installing speed cusions and a myriad of signs, telling us twentys plenty, or LEZ low emission zone starts here, on as many street corners as they can, despite average traffic speeds less than twenty in rush hour, and the LEZ zone covering virtually every road inside the M25.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tf...rs/lez/areaofoperation/

Have town planners got the balance of signage, traffic calming measures right? or Is it time to declutter the streets?

http://www.telegraph.co....6/10/14/mflights114.xml



Back to top
Newbie
#2 Posted : 07 February 2008 23:13:03(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Now i'm all for modernising an area, after all Valentines High was where I received my, edukashun, and the local Turkish chip shop made a mean doner roll.

Gantshill station is long due a revamp.

http://www.ilfordrecorde...redbridge/recorder/news

Modernisation? TfL? this can only mean one thing, more street clutter, it's especially scary when...

"Design development has continued since the consultation, and is now nearing completion."

Road build outs? Plastic covered bollards? Traffic Islands? more road signage?

This is an area that takes large HGV's up the A12, Cranbrook Road is very congested in the rush hour. "Central reservations with trees"...i'll let you all do the scenario's / outcomes, add a few pelican crossings and I foresee...gridlock, AKA Barkingside.

De-Clutter the streets!
Back to top
 |  Edit by moderator
Newbie
#3 Posted : 16 February 2008 13:04:48(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
This just about say's it all on the rational behind the LEZ and various traffic calming measures The Times
"I hate cars" Ken said "if I ever get any powers again i'd ban the lot", as seen with the massive £25 a day congestion charge for larger engined vehicles Volvo's, Jaguars etc or any vehicle producing 225g/km of CO2 or more TfL and the scrapping of the 90% residents discount for owners of these vehicles, who reside inside the zone.

Since when did the congestion charge become the emission charge? 4th February 2008 thats when! why else would TfL install cameras to the tune of £49 million PLUS running costs, to draw in just £3.5 million in fines a year (gradually dropping as older trucks get replaced)

What use will the LEZ cameras be in 2009? expect an ever expanding congestion charge zone, with even more draconian measures, would the vehicles included in the LEZ expand to cover cars and motorcycles? will the congestion charge zone expand ever wider to where the new cameras have been installed?

Just how green are TfL's outdated traffic calming measures?, who cares, at this rate we'll all be on push bikes!

De-Clutter the Streets
Back to top
 |  Edit by moderator
Newbie
#4 Posted : 19 February 2008 13:46:22(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
It didn't take long for someone to take action on the very large increase in the congestion charge.BBC Judicial review no less, and Porsche have the money to go all the way.

Do homeowners have the same avenues open to them, when a scheme, when put in place wipes tens of thousands of pounds off of their properties?

TfL's Twenty's Plenty schemes have been known to wipe such sums off of peoples properties.

De-Clutter the streets.
Back to top
Morris Hickey
#5 Posted : 19 February 2008 14:46:44(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
Anybody can seek judicial review of a decision made by parliament or a public authority. BUT it is quite expensive, there is no guarantee either of success or recovery of costs, and should not be undertaken unless there is clear evidence that process was faulty. It is not solely a remedy for a decision with which somebody disagrees.
Back to top
Newbie
#6 Posted : 19 February 2008 16:47:59(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
So theoretically a group of homeowners who were NOT told about the disadvantages of signing up to a scheme,(Reduced Property Prices / Property Less Desireable) could band together with those homeowners who oppossed the scheme, combine funds and seek a judicial review of the consultation procedure for such a scheme?

The consultation forms make no mention of adverse affects on the values of residential property within such a scheme, nor is there any mention of extra noise / vibration / pollution and increased rates of accidents around such schemes.

Therefore it could be argued, homeowners could not come to a fully informed decision, as the full implications of the schemes were ommitted from the consultation forms?

Given the possible substantial reduction in property prices within such a scheme, taking such action (judicial review) may be viewed as an investment?

De-Clutter the streets!
Back to top
Newbie
#7 Posted : 23 February 2008 11:41:04(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
This makes interesting reading on speed humps.

TfL may pay for the installation of the humps, but who picks up the bill for the accidents that are caused?

It could easily be argued, that anyone injured, seriously or otherwise, given the vast evidence available that the council would be directly responsible for any accidents around such schemes.

I personally know of a scooterist who suffered personal injury when a 50mm deviation in road surface ejected him from his scooter (large damages were successfully claimed from Epping Council)

Given that the approved speed humps are 75mm and above, it is inevitable that more accidents involving two wheel vehicles will occur (A bit Ironic given the Chairman of TfL is trying to get us onto two wheels to avoid congestion)

It is inconceivable that in 2008 Redbridge council are still implementing outdated traffic schemes on the premise that "if just one child accident is avoided the scheme will have been worthwhile" what kind of thinking is this?, especially when the very low accident rates around the schools do not warrant the implementation of speed humps.

If any bus drivers / passengers, motorists, motorcyclist's, cyclist's or any other road user (emergency services?) suffer personal injury because of such schemes, (speed humps) then such schemes should be deemed a failure, (as they are with other councils), large damages claimed, and the insistence that such schemes are removed forthwith.

Speed humps covered with snow are a significant danger, as are vehicle tyre blow outs well below a given speed limit.

Many councils have woken up to the fact that these schemes create more problems than they solve, and the 'bribe' of TfL's money was just not worth the resulting financial liabilities.

De-Clutter the Streets
Back to top
Newbie
#8 Posted : 23 February 2008 11:59:36(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
For a comprehensive list of objections against speed humps submitted to the London Assembly in 2003, see the PDF document Here .
The disadvantages far outweight the advantages.

De-Clutter the Streets
Back to top
weggis
#9 Posted : 23 February 2008 21:09:32(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
Oi oi!

http://rupertsread.blogs...g-to-road-near-you.html

"Plans for a city-wide 20mph speed limit on residential roads have been made a priority for Norwich City Council for the coming year."

“A 20mph limit will make huge savings because the council will not have to spend huge amounts on other measures like speed humps."

Humps are upside down holes. If pot holes are a Hazard and have to be repaired then so too do their opposite equivalent!
Back to top
WWW BLOG
annesevant
#12 Posted : 24 February 2008 10:08:05(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
Newbie is passionnate. Newbie talks sense, Newbie provides the links should the councillors want to check for themselves.
Loads of articles are written in the papers. All to no avail. We will get those speed humps that a lot of councils are paying to have removed!
Yesterday, I watched on television Cllr Aaron complain bitterly that the council wrote more than thirty letters to TFL asking for the CCTV cameras to be plugged in in the subways at Gants Hill, all to no effect, and a very simple job it would be too.
Cllr Aaron must know exactly how a lot of us feel.
annesevant
Back to top
CiaranMitchell
#13 Posted : 24 February 2008 13:00:57(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 17/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 137
I saw the same news report, I couldnt't believe the chap they were speaking to was a Councillor! He certainly didn't look like one!
Back to top
theprodigalson
#10 Posted : 24 February 2008 16:52:06(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 22/02/2008(UTC)
Posts: 11
Quote:
Weggis: Humps are upside down holes. If pot holes are a Hazard and have to be repaired then so too do their opposite equivalent!


I agree Weggis. There are humps down my street. Sometime ago i saw an ambulance rushing someone into the back of the ambulance but had to drive slowly because of the humps. Thinking logically, I presume the ambulance was in a hurry, these humps would hinder the ambulances and police cars. Fire engines are different because they are bigger. People speed down my street and you can see the sctratch marks and chips off of them.

Would it not be more sensible for the council to have stricter enforcements of the speed limit, rather than the humps that prevent the emergency services from doing their jobs effectively??
Back to top
 |  Edit by user
weggis
#14 Posted : 24 February 2008 18:33:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
CiaranMitchell wrote:
I saw the same news report, I couldnt't believe the chap they were speaking to was a Councillor! He certainly didn't look like one!


So do tell Ciaran, what exactly do Councillors look like?
Back to top
WWW BLOG
dopeyf
#15 Posted : 26 February 2008 21:31:31(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
here are various reports about humps

The frightening thing is that it has cost the residents of Barnet £10 million to provide inferior and chaotic roads and what can only be regarded as "non jobs" for highway officers over the past 10 years. Here is a summary of the Mail on Sunday article by Brian Coleman, Executive Member for the Environment on Barnet Council:

Barnet Council in North London has decided to scrap expensive road humps and also bus and cycle lanes that cause bottlenecks in traffic hot spots. In a radical new traffic policy Barnet is trying to keep traffic moving by removing traffic calming obstacles.

Other local authorities in London are following Barnet's lead, as is Derby City Council. This is common sense, but councillors who agree with these measures are frustrated by some highways officers on local councils, whose jobs involve devising new road schemes. Barnet has shed six officers who were employed under the previous Lib Dem-Labour alliance. In Barnet 120 obstacles have been removed, and 500 are still to be tackled. The London Ambulance Service claims that 500 unnecessary deaths a year in London alone are caused by traffic calming measures. The fire service also complains about the obstacles, saying they add to response times.

 Research carried out in Austria on a mile long stretch of road with six humps and a 40kph speed limit showed that cars negotiating the humps emmitted 10 times more nitrogen oxide, 3 times more poisonous carbon monoxide, and 25% more carbon dioxide, than vehicles maintaining a constant speed. Fuel consumption rose from 7.9 litres to nearly 10 litres per 100 km. The report concluded: "A regular traffic flow would therefore always be more environmentally friendly".
 The Transport Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom conducted emissions tests on roads with a 75 metre hump spacing and found CO emissions increased by 70–80%, Hydro-carbons by 70–100%, and CO₂ by 50–60%.

this is also an interesting and revealing website http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm
Back to top
whisp
#11 Posted : 27 February 2008 12:47:10(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 30/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7
theprodigalson wrote:
I agree Weggis. There are humps down my street. Sometime ago i saw an ambulance rushing someone into the back of the ambulance but had to drive slowly because of the humps. Thinking logically, I presume the ambulance was in a hurry, these humps would hinder the ambulances and police cars. Fire engines are different because they are bigger. People speed down my street and you can see the sctratch marks and chips off of them.

Would it not be more sensible for the council to have stricter enforcements of the speed limit, rather than the humps that prevent the emergency services from doing their jobs effectively??


I thought that speed bumps could be made these days with gaps in them the right size for ambulances and fire trucks to pass through them unaffected?

theprodigalson wrote:
People speed down my street and you can see the sctratch marks and chips off of them.


But that's the point! It's to stop people from speeding. If they didn't hit the bumps at speed then they wouldn't scratch their cars.
Back to top
Newbie
#16 Posted : 27 February 2008 13:11:13(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
As stated speed humps and street clutter are a menace and have been discredited by numerous reports and evidenced by other councils.

Why should the residents who live in the area be subjected to all the problems that speed humps create?

Why are modern methods (cameras / lasers ) not employed against a small minority to catch and deter?

Why are highway planning officers allowed to transfer from one local authority to the next imposing their outdated traffic schemes on residents?

Why are schemes just nodded through without questioning the validity of such schemes? (kerb build outs / speed humps)

Why do councillors not question officers when presented with overwhelming evidence that traffic clutter ruins the appearance of our streets and is detrimental to residents and the enviroment?

Why do we put up with it?

De-Clutter the Streets
Back to top
weggis
#17 Posted : 29 February 2008 22:52:44(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 564
Location: Redbridge Eye
Newbie,

"In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the words or conduct of men."

Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792
Back to top
WWW BLOG
Morris Hickey
#18 Posted : 01 March 2008 09:00:17(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
weggis wrote:
Newbie,

"In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the words or conduct of men."

Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792


Unequivocal? What - in Redbridge?
Back to top
annesevant
#19 Posted : 01 March 2008 12:59:17(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
Apologies to Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792, I don't understand what she means at all!
Can somebody out there write it in bog-standard English, please?
annesevant
Back to top
whisp
#20 Posted : 01 March 2008 17:19:45(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 30/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7
I was going to say the same thing Anne!
Back to top
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET

All areas