Answer to Colchester congestion crisis - stop cars! (From Essex County Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECS to 80360, or email »
Answer to Colchester congestion crisis - stop cars!
2:41pm Thursday 11th October 2012 in News By Wendy Brading
A Cycling campaigner has put forward radical proposals to reduce congestion in Colchester - including closing a key junction to cars during peak times.
About 34,000 vehicles travel under North Station bridge each day creating a bottleneck of traffic at peak times.
And concerns have been raised the situation will get worse when 1,600 homes are built off Nayland Road in Mile End in forthcoming years.
Questions are being asked about how to deal with the extra influx of traffic.
And Will Bramhill, chairman of the Colchester Cycling Campaign, said the answer is to deter it.
Comments(54)
Say It As It Is OK?
says...
3:07pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Also totally impractical and downright Barmy to suggest North Station Road is closed to traffic.
The usual anti car people will no doubt voice their opinion on what a good idea this is without thinking through what impact it will have on thousands of people and businesses.
Sdapeze
says...
4:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12
SOMETHING2SAY
says...
4:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12
romantic
says...
4:46pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Congestion is a problem, more people could cycle or use buses, we won´t solve the problem by building more roads. If you´re sitting in traffic, you are yourself part of the cause of that jam. I did it for many years before digging out my old bike, and actually it normally ends up faster to cycle than to drive.
But I wouldn´t advocate closing North Station Bridge, as there really are few alternatives.
Scoot
says...
4:50pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Im_Like_HELLO
says...
5:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
5:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12
setbuilder
says...
6:04pm Thu 11 Oct 12
It does sometimes appear that some people want their cake and eat it!
Feisty CBC
says...
7:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
7:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12
SamEssex
says...
9:38pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Reginald47
says...
11:14pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Boris
says...
11:57pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Im_Like_HELLO wrote:Thanks, Im_Like, for easily the best comment so far.
The problem of people having to commute further and further to work has to be solved first in order to solve traffic problems. It started when people could travel further, because they could, now they are dependent on it. And now people can't go back because there mindset is irrevocably altered. So the only hope is to get out there in schools and change young people's minds and attitudes for the better regarding travel.
Unfortunately, though, propaganda efforts in schools are not going to help much. There has to be action by government and local authorities to move jobs to where people live. Instead we get thousands more houses in Colchester when it is already predetermined that most of them will become homes of new commuters to London. And likewise it is predetermined that, since the railway line is already at full capacity, more and more of those commuters will stand all the way to work and all the way back, thus arriving home exhausted, able only to live out their lives in quiet desperation.
Smouldering Ewok
says...
2:11am Fri 12 Oct 12
They all have stupid roundabouts in place.
I believe these were built to slow traffic down and they certainly have that desired effect.
Now if these were removed and foot bridges were built in appropiate locations to enable cycles and pedestrians to cross safely, I believe that would be a promising start to this whole sorry affair.
Implement this with a road plan drawn up by an experienced road planner with a proven track record and Bob's your uncle.
Then, hopefully, we won't have to suffer the grind of daily congestion any longer and everyone will be happy.
Now I do believe that is a better suggestion than the one printed in our local paper.
If you don't agree then come up with a better idea!
wellnow
says...
8:50am Fri 12 Oct 12
pinkteapot
says...
10:23am Fri 12 Oct 12
romantic
says...
10:27am Fri 12 Oct 12
Smouldering Ewok wrote:Roundabouts were designed as a means of keeping the traffic flowing! Rather than having people stopped at lights, the theory is that everybody gets through faster.
Look at all the congested areas throughout Colchester and what do they have in common.
They all have stupid roundabouts in place.
I believe these were built to slow traffic down and they certainly have that desired effect.
Now if these were removed and foot bridges were built in appropiate locations to enable cycles and pedestrians to cross safely, I believe that would be a promising start to this whole sorry affair.
Implement this with a road plan drawn up by an experienced road planner with a proven track record and Bob's your uncle.
Then, hopefully, we won't have to suffer the grind of daily congestion any longer and everyone will be happy.
Now I do believe that is a better suggestion than the one printed in our local paper.
If you don't agree then come up with a better idea!
If they do not work, it is usually because people block the entrances.
Why should bikes and pedestrians be forced onto footbridges or subways? The crossing places do not cause congestion. Do you still not get that congestion is caused by too many vehicles on the road? Your vision sounds something like Birmingham, where the car truly is king - and guess what, they still have congestion!
We need the park and ride, we need to get more people onto buses, bikes and walking. Buses need to be cheaper. Kids should be walking to school if they are close enough, not being dropped off by parents.
Closing North Station Bridge, if that is the plan, is probably going too far, but definitely we need to be promoting the alternatives to the car, not pushing people onto footbridges.
If you are stuck in traffic, you are part of the cause of the jam!
theequaliser1
says...
1:18pm Fri 12 Oct 12
You lot do not pay for the roads the motorist does so why should the car owner be disenfranchised?
Scoot
says...
1:39pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Sdapeze wrote:Err, Sdapeze what about those people that live outside Colchester and have a bus timetable that only suits those that need to travel after 8.00am and before 5.00pm. many travel to Colchester also for the frequency of trains because you can be waiting 20 minutes some evenings for a Clacton train because the train timetable appears to be geared for those who live in Colchester Town.
Anybody that needs to drive under North Station Bridge could use a bus instead. Otherwise they would take a different route to the A12. Get a bike or a bus you lot and do the whole town a favour.
Smouldering Ewok
says...
2:18pm Fri 12 Oct 12
romantic wrote:It was a constructive comment Romantic.
Smouldering Ewok wrote:Roundabouts were designed as a means of keeping the traffic flowing! Rather than having people stopped at lights, the theory is that everybody gets through faster.
Look at all the congested areas throughout Colchester and what do they have in common.
They all have stupid roundabouts in place.
I believe these were built to slow traffic down and they certainly have that desired effect.
Now if these were removed and foot bridges were built in appropiate locations to enable cycles and pedestrians to cross safely, I believe that would be a promising start to this whole sorry affair.
Implement this with a road plan drawn up by an experienced road planner with a proven track record and Bob's your uncle.
Then, hopefully, we won't have to suffer the grind of daily congestion any longer and everyone will be happy.
Now I do believe that is a better suggestion than the one printed in our local paper.
If you don't agree then come up with a better idea!
If they do not work, it is usually because people block the entrances.
Why should bikes and pedestrians be forced onto footbridges or subways? The crossing places do not cause congestion. Do you still not get that congestion is caused by too many vehicles on the road? Your vision sounds something like Birmingham, where the car truly is king - and guess what, they still have congestion!
We need the park and ride, we need to get more people onto buses, bikes and walking. Buses need to be cheaper. Kids should be walking to school if they are close enough, not being dropped off by parents.
Closing North Station Bridge, if that is the plan, is probably going too far, but definitely we need to be promoting the alternatives to the car, not pushing people onto footbridges.
If you are stuck in traffic, you are part of the cause of the jam!
Certainly more constructive than removing cars from the road.
It is ridiculous to think that the roundabouts keep traffic flowing, because we all know that in reality, and at peak times especially, roundabouts have the reverse effect.
I really don't believe it is the car driver's fault either or any other road users fault regarding this congestion.
Surely it comes down to poor planning of the roads, lack of funding and lack of ideas.
This towns infrastructure has definately become over-balanced due to too many new flats/houses being built and the roads need to be updated accordingly.
Oh and by the way I am not part of the problem as i do not own a car but instead use my pedestrian power.
But i guess you can't please everyone can you.
RetiredVal
says...
3:49pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox
says...
4:34pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Four options are suggested:
:: closing N Stn bridge to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders
:: closing N Stn bridge ** at peak times only ** to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders
:: making N Stn bridge a chargeable congestion point to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders, and
:: making N Stn bridge a control point, with odd numbered/even numbered cars allowed through on alternate days or weeks.
Building a new road will just add to the problem by telling the thousands of new inhabitants that it's okay to drive.
Even with restrictions on N Stn bridge, you can drive via Ipswich Road or Stanway.
By the time this scheme is up and running, park and ride will be here, and Mile End will have access to the A12.
Essex County Council has set a target of a 15% reduction in traffic. How do Goss and Turrell hope to do that? They're just wringing their hands and saying "in your cars, boys, more of the same!". We need leadership, not vote-chasing!
Brooks Forbutox
says...
5:05pm Fri 12 Oct 12
ets/files/connect2/g
uidelines%2016.pdf).
This leaves 4,800 journeys that are longer than five miles. If I'm travelling more than five miles, I'll accept a congestion charge as part of the price to pay for less congestion, or acknowledge that if I need to use the car, I have to go out of my way for a comparatively short distance compared with my total journey.
Hampton23
says...
6:07pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Say It As It Is OK?
says...
6:25pm Fri 12 Oct 12
:: making N Stn bridge a control point, with odd numbered/even numbered cars allowed through on alternate days or weeks.
Sounds good to me but what a silly and ill thought through suggestion! Having use of two cars, one with odd numbers, the other with even means I'm alright jack!
jim_bo
says...
6:31pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox
says...
7:07pm Fri 12 Oct 12
om/
The old see dog
says...
11:25pm Fri 12 Oct 12
romantic wrote:Quote:-
Smouldering Ewok wrote:Roundabouts were designed as a means of keeping the traffic flowing! Rather than having people stopped at lights, the theory is that everybody gets through faster.
Look at all the congested areas throughout Colchester and what do they have in common.
They all have stupid roundabouts in place.
I believe these were built to slow traffic down and they certainly have that desired effect.
Now if these were removed and foot bridges were built in appropiate locations to enable cycles and pedestrians to cross safely, I believe that would be a promising start to this whole sorry affair.
Implement this with a road plan drawn up by an experienced road planner with a proven track record and Bob's your uncle.
Then, hopefully, we won't have to suffer the grind of daily congestion any longer and everyone will be happy.
Now I do believe that is a better suggestion than the one printed in our local paper.
If you don't agree then come up with a better idea!
If they do not work, it is usually because people block the entrances.
Why should bikes and pedestrians be forced onto footbridges or subways? The crossing places do not cause congestion. Do you still not get that congestion is caused by too many vehicles on the road? Your vision sounds something like Birmingham, where the car truly is king - and guess what, they still have congestion!
We need the park and ride, we need to get more people onto buses, bikes and walking. Buses need to be cheaper. Kids should be walking to school if they are close enough, not being dropped off by parents.
Closing North Station Bridge, if that is the plan, is probably going too far, but definitely we need to be promoting the alternatives to the car, not pushing people onto footbridges.
If you are stuck in traffic, you are part of the cause of the jam!
"Why should bikes and pedestrians be forced onto footbridges or subways? The crossing places do not cause congestion." Go take a look at the roundabouts at the Albert, Ipswich Road, Harwich Road and especially the crossing at Tesco that one holds up the traffic 24/7 with the dribs and drabs of students all the others hold up traffic in the morning and evening rush hours. If there were bridges over the roads there would be no hold up what so ever. They put a foot bridge over the river and the rail track for the students so why not over the road? What pea brain in the council thought up the idea of putting crossings on roundabouts?
Brooks Forbutox
says...
11:47pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Say It As It Is OK?
says...
8:52am Sat 13 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox wrote:You obviously haven't been to Leeds recently! Yes, when it was built in the 70s traffic freely bypassed under the city centre but today its a different matter. The York Road underpass is an absolute nightmare and where it links up with the A61 (towards Scott Hall Road/Harehills) during rush hour it can take 45 minutes to get from the bottom of Scott Hall road onto the underpass, a distance of half a mile then its another slow crawl through the underpass.
Peds don't cause congestion, too many cars do. Let's put the roads underground, as they did in Leeds. That solved their jams, didn't it? :-)
All towns and cities are struggling but the car is not a new phenonomem and this talk of using public transport or cycling everywhere won't work to cut car usage until public transport gets everyone to where they need to go, when they need to go!
That's the issue that needs tackling first, not hit the motorist without thinking through all the issues or consequences of knee jerk reactions like the ones suggested.
Brooks Forbutox
says...
9:44am Sat 13 Oct 12
Sdapeze
says...
1:13pm Sat 13 Oct 12
setbuilder
says...
1:39pm Sat 13 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox wrote:and add 'all motorcyclists - fill that pillion!' reducing it by a further 50% ;)
@scoot: yes, cyclists should be no more that two abreast, but even that means they take up one lane of the road (their width plus passing distance). Do you get equally infuriated by all the drivers who have 3/4 empty seats as they queue around town, or is it just that the cyclists are different to you? Perhaps the restriction on N Stnbridge should be "full cars only" - reducing congestion by three quarters straight away!
jut1972
says...
8:27pm Sat 13 Oct 12
Sdapeze wrote:Unless you live in Mile End and want to go to the zoo for example.Where getting a bus is nigh on impossible and a ridiculous price.
Anybody that needs to drive under North Station Bridge could use a bus instead. Otherwise they would take a different route to the A12. Get a bike or a bus you lot and do the whole town a favour.
:: closing N Stn bridge to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders
what a daft assumption that everyone going under the bridge is a train user. What about those that live in Mile End? I know divert them down Mill Road then Ipswich Road then Cowdray Avenue which are 3 other traffic hotspots.
:: closing N Stn bridge ** at peak times only ** to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders
ditto.
:: making N Stn bridge a chargeable congestion point to all private traffic except station car park season ticket holders, and
ditto once more..
:: making N Stn bridge a control point, with odd numbered/even numbered cars allowed through on alternate days or weeks.
Except ambulances, taxis, delivery vechiles, oh and all those who have paid for the car park.
The only answer is to widen the bridge allowing an extra lane and most importantly stop building in Mile End. Car drivers pump enormous amounts of tax into the coffers through, petrol, road tax, servincing, insurance. Why should we pay more and be further disadvantaged? I have already cut my mileage down serverely due to the spiralling costs and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Joker50
says...
7:48am Sun 14 Oct 12
SOMETHING2SAY wrote:I think you will find 34K is a safe estimate, I live on a main road in to Colchester equally as busy and have counted 75 cars in a minute going in each direction ( at peak times ) and the road is always busy. Get your calculator out.
pathetic headline...and 34k go under the bridge each day ??...i doubt it...its not Dartford !!!
wellnow
says...
9:18am Sun 14 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox
says...
11:40am Sun 14 Oct 12
@sayitasitis - I was being sarcastic about "Car City" - they've tried to remove pedestrians, cyclists from their road network and it just put even more people into cars.
We have to call a halt somewhere.
6079 Smith W
says...
3:16pm Sun 14 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox wrote:Like Sdapeze, I think you make much sense.
@scoot: yes, cyclists should be no more that two abreast, but even that means they take up one lane of the road (their width plus passing distance). Do you get equally infuriated by all the drivers who have 3/4 empty seats as they queue around town, or is it just that the cyclists are different to you? Perhaps the restriction on N Stnbridge should be "full cars only" - reducing congestion by three quarters straight away!
I would add the Highway Code will tell you that you should overtake a cyclist allowing the same amount of room you would a car, which means giving the cyclist an average full lane anyway. How many drivers do that?
Still not all cyclists help their cause. Those that rush past within inches of me along the Wivenhoe Trail each morning, are rather similar to most car drivers. Or the idiot clad in lycra who came onto the pedestrian half of a shared pavement and hit me last week.
Brooks Forbutox
says...
6:21pm Sun 14 Oct 12
romantic
says...
11:31am Mon 15 Oct 12
6079 Smith W wrote:As a cyclist and driver, I see both sides of it. I am quite often on the Wivenhoe Trail as a cyclist (I don´t wear Lycra, it wasn´t me who hit you!), and I have to agree that some of my fellow cyclists don´t ride in a safe way - you have to ride on the assumption that you have no idea what is round the corner.
Brooks Forbutox wrote:Like Sdapeze, I think you make much sense.
@scoot: yes, cyclists should be no more that two abreast, but even that means they take up one lane of the road (their width plus passing distance). Do you get equally infuriated by all the drivers who have 3/4 empty seats as they queue around town, or is it just that the cyclists are different to you? Perhaps the restriction on N Stnbridge should be "full cars only" - reducing congestion by three quarters straight away!
I would add the Highway Code will tell you that you should overtake a cyclist allowing the same amount of room you would a car, which means giving the cyclist an average full lane anyway. How many drivers do that?
Still not all cyclists help their cause. Those that rush past within inches of me along the Wivenhoe Trail each morning, are rather similar to most car drivers. Or the idiot clad in lycra who came onto the pedestrian half of a shared pavement and hit me last week.
In an ideal world, we would have separated bike lanes and footpaths, but we don´t really have the space for that in most towns, so the shared path is the next best option. But just as cars have to be aware of cyclists, also cyclists have to be aware there may be a pedestrian around the corner.
The idea of full cars only is a good one, although probably a nightmare to actually enforce.
Closing the bridge completely would, of course, cut congestion there, but without any viable alternative route, would just shift it to somewhere else. To be honest, I´m glad I am not the one who has to create a plan to solve this, but we really do need to get more people out of their cars and onto alternative means of transport for short journeys.
mechanic7
says...
4:15pm Mon 15 Oct 12
6079 Smith W
says...
7:17pm Mon 15 Oct 12
While I don't currently own a car, I've held a licence for 25 years, and drive every single day as part of my job. I also have a 5 mile walk to work and back each day, so on this basis I'm driver, pedestrian, and a recently ex-cyclist!
The guy who hit me last week - I can't help but wonder if the lycra brigade are a breed apart to other cyclists - just seemed like so many motorists, in a ridiculous hurry to get where he wanted, irrespective of whoever got in his way. Chances are he'll get in his car and drive in the same selfish way.. In fact, he's probably worse, nothing like a car to cocoon you from the rest of the planet..
Certainly interested in exploring ways to hit motorists hard who selfishly drive on their own (OK, I accept there will always be those with little choice, but I bet that's a small minority). There's enough research out there to prove widening roads simply doesn't work, in fact it was found the extra lane placed on a particular section of the M25 actually made matters worse. No, the only solution is to cut the amount of traffic on our roads, and I personally think a much improved (and publicly run) public transport is key here. But alas, it seems there are those who will need a stick as well a carrot. Don't know how this works technologically, but Colchester needs some bold ideas to combat this problem. But I certainly like the idea of a congestion charge for those who refuse to share.
wormshero
says...
9:24am Tue 16 Oct 12
Not to mention the negative effect such a thing would have on the retail park up there - detour via highwoods to get from east colchester to asda for instance?
CJ1989
says...
12:07pm Tue 16 Oct 12
It's ingrained in everyone now - cars aren't a luxury, they're a basic human right (feel free to disagree, I do too, but that's the population's mindset).
Public transport is never going to take the place of the car. The majority of people will ALWAYS opt for the most convenient option. Buses don't always go where you want to go, or stop too often, or don't stop enough etc etc. Trains are too expensive, and cycling isn't always possible.
That part of Colchester has had it. There's genuinely no solution. Closing the road under the bridge will cause chaos on surrounding routes. Introducing a toll will certainly raise money, but also cause chaos to surrounding routes, and we'll have even bigger queues.
These problems can only be solved by effective planning. If you're going to build masses of new housing, the infrastructure must be in first. Not triggered when a certain number of houses have been built, but before. If the developers can't afford to do that, they should go elsewhere.
Ludicrous planning decisions are going to keep making matters worse. Someone was telling me about a new housing development near the station (I think), where the lib dems had decided that as it was near the station, no provision would be required for the parking of cars, and now you can hardly move for the things.
There's nothing we can do to sort out this problem (short of building a bridge or a tunnel - which isn't a serious option), we can just try not to keep making the same mistakes.
It's never going to happen though. They'll keep on building without any real thought, people will keep on buying cars, and we'll all still be moaning about it in 20/50/100 years.
CJ1989
says...
12:10pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox
says...
12:30pm Tue 16 Oct 12
om/
Are you talking about vehicle excise duty. I'm a driver and a cyclist and I pay that; the money doesn't pay for roads, it goes into the general exchequer.
CJ1989
says...
1:07pm Tue 16 Oct 12
The general point I was inarticulately trying to make in between bites of a sandwich was that when the anti-cycling brigade start claiming that we shouldn't be allowed on the roads as we've contributed nothing to their upkeep, the majority have already parted with a big chunk of cash which goes towards it.
Having read your link I see we're in agreement, and have still managed to disagree due to my misuse of the words 'road tax' (sorry!).
On another note I'm definitely buying a tax disk jersey, they made me chuckle.
Brooks Forbutox
says...
4:54pm Tue 16 Oct 12
romantic
says...
5:03pm Tue 16 Oct 12
ramadm@hotmail.co.uk wrote:You´re welcome to your viewpoint.
In this modern day bikes are a menace and have no place on our roads, horse and carts disappeared so should bikes, modern life / progress wouldn't survive without the car/van/lorry, so cyclists / target practice on ya bike.
You carry on sitting in traffic jams while I cycle home in half the time it used to take me when driving.
You carry on paying through the nose for your little illusion of freedom, I´ll run my bike for a fraction of that cost and stay fit into the bargain.
Reading the posts from several people basically saying that the car should have precedence over everyone else, I´ve realised that actually, I don´t care if you´re stuck in traffic jams. If so many people are simply not prepared to even look at alternatives, then why should I care?
Anybody driving less than 3-4,000 miles a year should look at a car share club. There are such things in town. Ditch the car completely. Use taxis when you really need to get somewhere. You´ll still save overall.
The buses are probably not as cheap as they could ideally be, but an all day ticket is about 3.40. If 30 people got out of their individual cars and onto the bus, that´s another 30 less pieces of traffic.
Anybody who drives their kid to school if it´s less than a mile or two should try walking there with the kids, and once old enough, they can walk themselves. I was walking to school from the age of 5, and without parental guidance within a couple of weeks of starting. The main danger for kids doing that is... well, it´s the traffic. Less people doing that school run every day = less traffic.
All those commuters who drive in every day could, I am sure, be matched up with others who go to and from the same place, and could share the journeys. Perhaps takes a bit more organising, but could be encouraged with maybe cheaper parking for those who join such a scheme.
I accept that not everybody can come out of their cars, but the harsh reality is that the congestion is not caused by bikes, it is caused by cars. Every person who insists on their "freedom" to drive exactly where and when they want is adding to the congestion. We should at least encourage alternatives.
Each car off the road at peak times means you will get to your destination that little bit faster. You never know, you might even get across town faster than me on my bike!
6079 Smith W
says...
6:23pm Tue 16 Oct 12
ramadm@hotmail.co.uk wrote:So you've completely avoided the 'nanny state'. Woeful grammar and spelling is not something I'd normally comment on, but it really does surprise me of somebody privately educated. And I'm delighted to get up your nose.
6079 Smith W wrote:"But I certainly like the idea of a congestion charge for those who refuse to share." Why would I want to get on a bus with all the chaves and germs , why should I share my car I bought it with my hard earn't cash I am not an extension of the nanny state ,, Working class lefty's get right up my nose.
I hope I can appreciate the problem from all sides. While it's a couple of years since I last got on a bike, I used to cycle very often. The fact that the vast majority of motorists do seem to think two or three feet is sufficient clearance (and all of Colchester's hills!), put me off.
While I don't currently own a car, I've held a licence for 25 years, and drive every single day as part of my job. I also have a 5 mile walk to work and back each day, so on this basis I'm driver, pedestrian, and a recently ex-cyclist!
The guy who hit me last week - I can't help but wonder if the lycra brigade are a breed apart to other cyclists - just seemed like so many motorists, in a ridiculous hurry to get where he wanted, irrespective of whoever got in his way. Chances are he'll get in his car and drive in the same selfish way.. In fact, he's probably worse, nothing like a car to cocoon you from the rest of the planet..
Certainly interested in exploring ways to hit motorists hard who selfishly drive on their own (OK, I accept there will always be those with little choice, but I bet that's a small minority). There's enough research out there to prove widening roads simply doesn't work, in fact it was found the extra lane placed on a particular section of the M25 actually made matters worse. No, the only solution is to cut the amount of traffic on our roads, and I personally think a much improved (and publicly run) public transport is key here. But alas, it seems there are those who will need a stick as well a carrot. Don't know how this works technologically, but Colchester needs some bold ideas to combat this problem. But I certainly like the idea of a congestion charge for those who refuse to share.
jut1972
says...
10:15pm Tue 16 Oct 12
North station bridge has 75 cars a minute..
So each bus is saving less than 30 seconds worth of congestion.
Buses wont work.
Makes you wonder why they are bothering building the bus lane.
Brooks Forbutox
says...
11:08pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Brooks Forbutox
says...
2:21pm Wed 24 Oct 12
http://www.thepsycho
logist.org.uk/archiv
e/archive_home.cfm?v
olumeID=25&editionID
=217&ArticleID=2135
Bert_Stimpson says...
2:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12
This has to be the most incomplete and pointless article ever. Sort it out.