View Single Post
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 4th 19, 10:45 PM posted to
JNugent[_5_] JNugent[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2011
Posts: 338
Default Cycle lanes cutting pollution

On 04/07/2019 16:56, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2019 16:46, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 15:29, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:48, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:12, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:39, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/07/2019 10:55, Recliner wrote: 9af

I wonder how much of the pollution has been transferred to The
Highway, which is where most of the traffic from the East is
queueing up to get on to Upper Thames Street? Mind you, the
parallel Beech Street, which is a cycle route, seems to spend too
much time over the legal limit for NO2 anyway.

Rather conveniently, Tower Hamlets are not part of the monitoring
scheme the data in the article was taken from.

And no-one cares.

Congestion on the Highway causes overspill and rat running to occur
in Shadwell (Cable Street) and Wapping - North and South
respectively. This casues previously quiet streets to often become
gridlocked with very slow moving traffic who clearly has no
business in the local area.

Complaints to the local council elicited a response from a
councillor actually justifying the traffic as somewhat rightful....

...and that sounds wrong to you because those people just have no
right to travel, do they?

No - my point is that the actions of local authorities (including, in
this case, TfL and Tower Hamlets) should not turn a residential
street into a traffic congested rat run,* particularly when they
decide to bleat sanctimoniously about their efforts when it has just
shifted the problem elsewhere (and was then badly reported - CS3 has
been in existance for almost a decade, not the 3-4 years they pointed
out, although that particular extension is only that old).

What should people do when the route they actually want to follow is
deliberately congested?

Grin and bear it?

Try a different route?

Give up?

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, my point was that the
local authorities had fouled it up and inferred it was therefore their
responsibility to fix it and stop congratulating themselves on a job
well done that wasn't.

I got that.

I ascribed no blame to the individual motorist although given the speed
of the traffic I don't believe they gained anything (the "different
route" covers no more than half a mile and has limited opportunities
with limited throughput to continue on the previous route) and probably
contributed to ever increasing congestion by blocking other junctions
and similar.

You described those people as "traffic who [sic] clearly has no business
in the local area". But everyone has legitimate reason for being on the
only route(s) available to them.

Fault there may be, in abundance, but the people you described are the
victims of it. Others may also be victims of it.