Graphic: £800,000 traffic shake-up for historic Norwich street

Tombland in Norwich, which could be set for an £800k traffic shake-up. Photo: Bill Smith Tombland in Norwich, which could be set for an £800k traffic shake-up. Photo: Bill Smith

Wednesday, June 11, 2014
9:26 AM

One of Norwich’s most historic areas could be set for an £800,000 traffic shake-up.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Push The Pedalways proposals for TomblandPush The Pedalways proposals for Tombland

City council bosses want to make changes to Tombland and Palace Street, as part of a £5.7m project to make it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to get around.

One of the proposals is to get rid of the mini-roundabout outside the Maids Head Hotel, to replace it with a junction.

Council officers say as well as making it safer for cyclists, that would also stop lorries from bashing into one of the ancient gates to Norwich Cathedral.

Officers say: “The existing roundabout, approach lanes and traffic island occupy a significant amount of space and the accident record shows that it is a source of conflict between cyclists and motorists.

“Therefore, it is proposed to replace the roundabout with a priority junction, with Tombland/Wensum Street being the main route and Palace Street being the side road.

“The removal of the roundabout also means that the traffic island opposite the Erpingham Gate can be removed, making access through the gate for large vehicles possible and reducing and eliminating the damage currently being caused to the Ethelbert Gate by these vehicles.”

The proposals would also see a two-way cycle path on Tombland, wider pavements and the removal of the pedestrian crossing near the Edith Cavell statue.

That crossing would be replaced by a toucan crossing at the Princes Street junction.

On nearby Palace Street, on-street parking would be removed and a two-way cycle track put in.

Mike Stonard, cabinet member for environment, development and transport, said: “Tombland is an important historical centre and has to be treated with great care.

“Its current design is off-putting to people walking and riding bikes because pavements are narrow, the roundabout dominates the space and crossings are missing.

“By improving the experience for pedestrians and cyclists in particular, Tombland will become a more attractive place, which will boost the local visitor and trading economy.”

The proposals will come before city and county councillors on the Norwich highways agency committee when they meet on Thursday.

Officers are recommending that the councillors approve the proposals in principle. Consultation would then start in July and any objections would return to the committee in September. Following that, work would start early next year.

The proposals form part of the £5.7m Push The Pedalways project. That project, awarded £3.7m by the Department of Health, aims to improve the eight-mile pink pedalway cycle route between the Norwich Research Park and Heartsease.

The council has already revealed its proposals for areas such as Heartsease, Mousehold, the Golden Triangle and Earlham.

In the months ahead, more consultations will be carried out in areas such as Earlham Road, Adelaide Street, Bethel Street, the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

• What do you think of the latest proposals? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

114 comments

  • I do not think licensing cyclists would make more road users considerate or even competent in some cases. That is simply because of human nature. There are some considerate people and some inconsiderate people just as there are some good drivers and some bad drivers. I gave up driving a car because I did not consider myself competent enough to be on the road. But I was licenced and tested and so was my vehicle. I did so both for my personal safety and for the benefit of other road users. When people have disregard for both themselves and others the problems begin. That applies to everyone in life whether road users or not and it still applies to myself.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    PDH

    Friday, June 13, 2014

  • @Union Jack I agree with you. Yes, cycling might be healthier, but what is good for other countries (such as pubs being open all day long and cycle only zones) don't necessarily work for us. Sure if a city is designed that way to start with, it's great, but trying to shoehorning these measures in needs a lot more thought and consultation. I personally think cycling should be licenced, then maybe every road user would be considerate. I have to pay tax on fuel, road fund licence, make sure my vehicle is roadworthy and pay for insurance, just so I can observe the highway code?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jason Burgess

    Friday, June 13, 2014

  • @Union Jack do a goggle search for health benefits of cycling vs that of more cars and more congestion. Its a much discussed topic. And factually you are misinformed.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Friday, June 13, 2014

  • "..Why the dept of health wish to be involved in promoting the inhalation of car and lorry fumes by cyclists in cities I do not know, it does seem contradictory to their brief to improve health.." Because at the moment, the alternative for many people is leading largely sedantry lifestyles, stressed out and angry sitting in traffic in the city centre, then going to their doctor because they're overweight, stressed out and angry all the time but can't muster the lateral thought process to perhaps do something about it. Clearly it's not possible for everyone to cycle or take a bus but those borderline people who live in the suburbs for instance, should be encouraged to get off their butts and try something different than shuffling to their car, to their work and back home again, all without barely lifting their pulse above resting level.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    frank young

    Friday, June 13, 2014

  • @monkeynuts the council are promoting the expenditure albeit of Money provided by the Dept of Health, but all the money spent by these people is ours not theirs, and this is a total and irresponsible waste of the publics money, particularly as they will have to borrow to do so. It is precisely this irresponsible spending of money we do not have that has landed the UK in debt. Why the dept of health wish to be involved in promoting the inhalation of car and lorry fumes by cyclists in cities I do not know, it does seem contradictory to their brief to improve health.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • @Union Jack its not council expenditure, it's been supplied by the Department of Health.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • @ kevin spilling I agree entirely. A complete waste of non existent funds. Totally irresponsible on the part of the council to even consider this expenditure.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • Best part of a million pounds wasted, leave the whole dam thing alone and spend it on needed traffic calming measures elsewhere!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    kevin spilling

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • General question for everyone...There's no parking in the center of the city, and all the usual car parks are still available. With that in mind why is these proposals so offensive?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • @jonno1805 The pothole wish is wishful thinking. But I will say more cycles and less cars equal less potholes, and remember this money has come from Department of Health who don't fund pothole repair.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • @Chubster you're right in part. But these things are not really put in place for cyclists. They are put in place to encourage motorists out of cars and onto bikes. Which will result in many benefits for everyone.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • @So_Many_Haters! Oh! no...My motorway comment was in reply to someone saying ONLY cyclists "ask for prioritized lanes". I was simply pointing out motorists already have them as motorways, and cyclists are not allowed to use them. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing more.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • Monkeynuts - you would seriously want to use a motorway on a cycle? With three lanes of traffic going at 50-90mph? You don't think that'll cause a very high risk of death to both yourself and other road users? Whilst I have no problems with getting rid of the mini roundabout,it has to be with consideration to improving traffic flow, not slowing it down. Making the least-used route the priority and forcing the highest-use route to be a give-way will only cause queues and jams to the surrounding area.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • Completely agree with getting rid of the roundabout, but the priority being given to Wensum St is a joke, designed to favour the handful of buses and cyclists that come that way. Palace St is regularly backed up to the bridge as it is. This measure will mean the Puppet Theatre roundabout will be gridlocked - which will also affect the buses nd cyclists trying to use the ring road. Why not just give priority to Palace St? The answer can only be because this is not a measure to improve traffic flow, but to force people out of their cars.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Chubster

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • If people don't want change, then they need to change the way that they think.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Whiley Boy

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • People are talking about a loud minority demanding roads designed specifically for them, I'm not sure how true that is, I mean just because the council is prioritising cycles and pedestrians doesn't mean people have asked for it. I cycle in to the city 2-3 times a week from North Norwich and through this area every time and have absolutely no problem with the current lay out! In fact I would argue that simply widening the road slightly and adding a small cycle lane at the edge would be better, if anything were changed at all. By the way I cycle, drive and walk if anyone is interested in my tax situation. I also agree that the money would better be spent on potholes as they are often the cause of cycles having to swerve or even losing control. How pissed off are bus drivers going to be with their shiny new bus lane up Grapes hill when they are stuck behind a bike with gridlocked traffic in the next lane and no overtake opportunities?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    jonno1805

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • Frank Young - we need to see a joined-up transport policy with realistic and affordable bus services. While it costs five times as much to take a family into the city by bus as it does by car, nobody is going to change their minds. Where cities have been pedestrianised there is often a fast and frequent tram or bus service that you can afford (just look at Manchester with it's free metro shuttle). If the council looked at using some of the money to pressurise Last Bus to reduce prices, more people would use the bus and it would become more efficient and reduce car journeys. Use the carrot, not the stick, to get people out of cars.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • There's no banning of cars, you will still be able to drive in and out of the city centre. Honestly, we don't like change in this Fine City do we? Everybody whinges about the traffic build up outside the likes of Chavfield and the Mall on a Saturday morning for instance but as soon as somebody tries to offer a solution to get a few more people out of cars and onto an alternative means of transport so you, the motorist have less cars in front of you, it's shot don't in flames. All the moaners basically saying "it's not fair" and the bizarre logic that "I pay through the nose for choosing to drive a car, so they should too". P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Let me ask the neigh sayers this, what's your solution then, you clearly aren't going to be prised out of your biscuit tins yet you expect a perfect ribbon of tarmac wherever you go, vast rows of parking spaces stretching as far as the eye can see etc etc without lifting a finger to do anything about it youself, apparently it's everybody elses fault!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    frank young

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • I can't see this making the area any safer, whilst there are buses and taxis still flying around there. I guess what they should probably do is make it pedestrian and cyclists only across the city centre. The way that things are going, we'll probably be that by 2018. The city needs cars!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Whiley Boy

    Thursday, June 12, 2014

  • On this I am going to sit on the fence and agree with both monkeynuts and Union Jack in equal measure just as long as the measure is a pint. As neither a car driver or cyclist but someone who lives local to the area and is a pedestrian and bus passenger I feel the current layout that exists at the moment helps no one and needs to be changed. Yes I do feel the council is putting too much emphasis on cycling which will reduce the number of visitors into the city and will ultimately have a negative effect on the local economy. Buses can be inconvenient and do not serve everywhere so there is a need for a system for motorists. However cycling has a beneficial effect on the health of the nation and as a local resident a knock on effect on my health as well. What we need is a joined up transport and highway policy that benefits everyone and neither this or the current system is it. I would like to see the council look at the network as a whole and with the help of experts design a system for the whole city not just individual bits of it every year or so. Also the council needs to take a holistic approach focusing on all areas of civilisation, commerce, leisure etc when doing so.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    PDH

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @union. And cities are not inherently dangerous, and if they are they need to change their design (like many have and are). I for one will be over the moon when more 20mph zones get introduced. The benifits to pedestrians will be massive.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @union. Lol, You know you're breathing those fumes too right . As well as every other pedestrian who walks round norwich? A sensible person would be concerned about such things. Last time a checked asthma, obesity, diabetes, heart problems are getting pretty epidemic. It's tragic that a small stretch of safe cycle path, that could benefit you and your kids if you wanted it too would be seen such a negative thing. Guess you can't please everyone. Oh, while I remember. Motorways, let me know when cyclists can use those won't you? .

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts sorry but thousands of miles of roads are available to cyclists and motorists including the A11.The issue is that cities by virtue of the volumes of traffic are inherently dangerous to all, so why would anybody sensible choose to expose themselves to danger on a bicycle. It is not healthy to ride a bike where lorries and buses have to travel and exude noxious fumes, even with cycle lanes so don't do it. It is not safe to ride a bike in heavy traffic so don't do it. If you insist on special roads and special treatment, you should expect to have to pay for the special roads.Nothing in this world is free, so if you want it, expect to pay for it. Even with cycle lanes you will be damaging your health riding in the city traffic.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • Don't worry every one the world is not going to end. It could be worse we could be faced with four weeks of Adrian Chiles endlessly prattling on about football. Noooooooooooo.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    PDH

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @parkeg1 how do you know how much tax I pay? Are you assuming because someone cycles they don't also drive? What and how you drive does not afford you any additional rights. The roads are public.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • I don't feel safe walking down Prince of wales Road on a Saturday night, so I don't do it and I don't expect anyone to change that for me. I don't feel safe crossing a main road without using a crossing, so I don't do it and I don't expect anyone to change that for me. If you cyclist's don't feel safe riding through Norwich, you know what to do but don't expect anyone to change that for you. The tax disc I pay for to put on my car is not elective, the insurance I have to pay is not elective, the MOT is not elective, the tax on my petrol is not elective and just to end before you all jump in and tell me I shouldn't use it and to get a bus, the reason I need to use my car is not elective, I'd sooner not travel into this stupid City, but I have to. Why do Cyclist still think car drivers should not have a say in how our money is spent, we put in far more than a local tax payer so button it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    parkeg1

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @union jack. Every road, 1000s and 1000s of miles gives motorists priority. The A11 being a good recent example. As I said, roads are a public space. People use it by right, motorists by license. Shame that so many forget this, and a shame you look to bully others off the road.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts no one said motorists were perfect, but they are not the ones asking for special and expensive priority treatment, and to be honest only a few cyclists, presumably the least competent, are making a lot of noise. If you do not feel safe, don't do it. It's a bit like jumping out of a plane and blaming others about the danger. If we are to install special roads all over the city then cyclists should have to pay a toll to use them.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts no one said motorists were perfect, but they are not the ones asking for special and expensive priority treatment, and to be honest only a few cyclists, presumably the least competent, are making a lot of noise. If you do not feel safe, don't do it. It's a bit like jumping out of a plane and blaming others about the danger. If we are to install special roads all over the city then cyclists should have to pay a toll to use them.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • I do so love the way it is still widely believed that so called road tax (thought it was called vehicle exise duty?) somehow meant that car drivers have more rights to use the roads than anyone else. Im a cyclist AND a car driver so where does that leave me in the scheme of things then? I pay my VED as a car driver so does that mean I can use the rd as a cyclist. Ridiculous people. Oh, inaofar as the comment from someone wanting to see Norwich as Englands Amsterdam? Hmm....what, an Amsterdam with hills and no canals? Yup, I can see the likeness now.....lol

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tootyfrooty

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts. You see a few bendies on the South side of the City - Queens RoadChapelfield etc. . Not only don't they corner well, they used to have a bad habit of catching fire. One of the reasons London reconsidered using them. I think one of the issues for bad behaviour is lack of police on the streets. Detection is too focussed on CCTV to record events. If a motorist jumps a light or bumps a bike he can (more often than not) be identified and traced. Sadly there is no similer deterrent for cyclists. Also many cyclists put themselves in danger, wearing hoodies and head phones which cuts down peripheral vision and traffic awareness and no lights at night.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • City Hall and NCC have failed to tell anyone that the old Bingo Hall opposite Bonds will be turned into a multistorey carpark, apparently, attracting extra traffic and pollution to an area that should be pedestrianised. A special new attraction within iot will be a drive in toilet so car users, bless, don't have to walk too far.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @union jack Ignore traffic lights? You're right, Ive never seen any motorists speed or use their phone. And filtering is legal, its one reason they put advanced stop boxes at the front of traffic. Anything else I can help you with?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • Union Jack@ you walked into that one didn't you. Road tax, no such thing, 2million motorists don't pay it. Insurance - that's the cost of using heavy machinery in a public space.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • Union Jack@ you walked into that one didn't you. Road tax, no such thing, its pollution tax and around 2million motorists don't pay it. Insurance, not needed as cyclists don't kill or maim in numbers anywhere close to cars (5 a day vs 1 a year). Ignore traffic lights? You're right, Ive never seen any motorists speed or use their phone. And filtering is legal, its one reason they put advanced stop boxes at the front of traffic. Anything else I can help you with?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts whilst we are talking about equality motorist pay ROAD tax, have a compulsory insurance requirement, have to achieve a driving standard, and must have a registration on their vehicle so they can be identified should they choose to ignore traffic lights. Having driven into the city for 30 years to work, I would suggest that the thing that puts cyclists in most danger is their lack of knowledge of the rules of the road, or their lack of willingness to comply. Lights for instance are almost unheard of on bikes, and trying to squeeze through a gap to get to the front of the stationery queue is fraught with danger but happens regularly.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @Union Jack cyclists are tax paying members of this nation, they have as much right to use the public road as you and it should be a given that motorists would not put them in danger. If that's not acceptable its not cyclists who should be removed its the ones introducing the danger.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • Sorry but cyclists are getting far too much attention. If cyclists feel exposed riding in the city they should catch a bus, and use the cycle outside the city for rest and relaxation. Using a cycle to get to work is fine, but not at the expense of all other road users, and more important at the expense of the financial viability of the city. Time for a reality check! Councillors should know better than to spend money we do not have on placating a vociferous but small minority. In these days of austerity, changes have to be financially viable, and unless they are proposing tolls for cyclists these changes have no real benefit. If this nonsense continues we will have separate lanes added for invalid carriages ( much more to the point), and then motor cyclists, and segways etc. etc.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • The way this Council is going, they will kill off the City, cars will be banned or parking fees will continue to go sky high. Then people will wonder why so many empty shops. I was in Yarmouth Wednesday the place we deserted, parking fees were to high. They same will happen here if to much given to cyclists

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Derek McDonald

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @Andy T I wasn't aware Norwich had any bendy buses. They have been something of a nightmare in London. They do not corner well. Regarding tax, I agree. My point is more about correcting peoples assumptions as to where it comes from.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @Whiley Boy of course (i didn't say otherwise). Which is the primary reason we should be making roads safer for kids right? id like my son to be able to cycle to school safely like they do in France, Germany and the Netherlands. Its worth fighting for.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts I would find it bad parenting to try and get a group of under 5's to cycle through the city with the amount of buses and taxis which are on the roads.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Whiley Boy

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • Why is it we are being drip fed these changes. Last week it was St Stephens now it is Tombland. Good to hear we have 5.7m in cash to spend, but not on yet another scheme to prioritise every form of transport other than cars and lorries on which the city depends. This is another ill considered move, these councillors swill eventually kill off the city other than for a few cyclists who will have no shops to go, and no place to work....job done??thank goodness we can all take our revenge when these incompetent wise guys and gals come up for election.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Union Jack

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts. Picking up your point on half empty busses, it's hard to understand why they bought in bigger "bendy" busses! They can't fill the small ones! Also as far as who pays for this is concerned it's slightly academic. Whether it be from central or local it is still from our taxes at the end of the day.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @andy your point is exactly why Im pro bike lane. If the roads are not safe for kids to cycle to school we have a problem. I'm very passionate about that. Sorry to disappoint but I do not work for the council.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • monkeynuts - I would love to see how you would cope with taking a couple of under 5s into Norwich on a bike. Get real! Incidentally, what is your job and at which council?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    andy

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @biglingers because the benefits of cycling (for everyone) outweigh those of cars by many 100x. And registration is never been a good way to stop hit and runs. Small plates on small bikes wont help, only hinder.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @biglingers Registration wont happen. The benefits outstrip any negatives 100x over. The same cannot be said for cars (5 killed a day, pollution, nhs costs, road damage, list goes on). As for hit and runs, happens every say with registered motorists and most go uncaught. A small impractical plate on a bike wont help because no one will see it. So while I appreciate you might want it, no government will implement it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @monkeynuts - read my comment again - I don't drive. As for legitimising cyclists - I'm all for it, so that next time a lycralout nearly sends me flying - he'll be traceable! Why is that cutting off my nose etc? Sounds like commonsense to most of us!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    biglingers

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • I walked past the area last night and I stopped for a few minutes on a bench outside the Cathedral to ponder why this is needed and also the impact to tourism in the area whilst the work is carried out. I can't help but come to the conclusion that the money can be better spent elsewhere, potholes just for starters and also, the disruption that this will cause whilst the work is carried out can't possibly outweigh the benefits.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Whiley Boy

    Wednesday, June 11, 2014

  • @308GT4 all the usual car parks are still available. This will make next to no difference to people who want to visit the city as demonstrated by many pedestrianised towns and cities around the UK.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Another waste of money by a Council hell bent on banning all cars from Norwich.....we won't be trying to fathom out all the changes of routes and diversions - causing more pollution - so it's 'bye bye' shops, restaurants and businesses in the city: we'll spend our money on line and where there is a car friendly welcome. Come on businesses, surely you aren't going to accept this (and the next stages of cripple city) from these idiots who want to tear the remainder of the guts out of what was once a Fine City - now a 'City of Fines'. Goodbye, was nice to know you once upon a time...........

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    308GT4

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @Richard Tax and insurance offer you no additional rights to use the road. Its a public space for the public and always has been.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @Richard Your tax and insurance offer you no additional rights to use the public space that is the road. Its been that way for close to 100 years now. If you wish to use a device in the public space that's around 40x more likely to kill someone than a bicycle its only right that you have specialised insurance for the task. Regarding "road tax", cyclists like all low rated CO2 producing cars pay £0. If you're unhappy with this exercise your right and buy a bike of a hybrid car. If you think cyclists should pay tax or hold insurance Im all ears as to the reasons why.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • I will not be entering Norwich city centre again as it is. Obvious that cars are not allowed any more and that cycles who do not pay any insurance or tax are what seems to be what is required

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Richard

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • One point no one has mentioned is that the planners are again trying to make up their own traffic laws. A 'footway surface' has no legal basis whatsoever any more than a raised part of the road for pedestrians to walk over. It is time this sort of practice was stopped. The raised part of the road is not a reason to stop and will inevitably increase the risk of accidents. Don't local authorities have an obligation to act within the law and highway code???

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    andy

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • £800,000 is a comparatively small sum of money given how much road and traffic schemes cost. A11 dualling costing over £100 million with no flyover at Barton Mills five-ways roundabout.. The mini-roundabout junction by the Maids Head needs to be altered. I presume Palace Street traffic will are giving way to give buses priority. There is room for a two way cycle lane on the cathedral side of Tombland. Handy going uphill towards Princes Street bur less useful if travelling the other way.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Capri

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Cycles paths are needed . We cant all drive ! fact ! Cycling is also fun in fair weather bringing valuable tourists . Id like Norwich to be the Amsterdam of England. PS ..I do drive a car too !

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Euro

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Lack of joined up thinking methinks! Where can we spend the money, partly on graphics and consultants.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Marigold

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Can someone explain why Palace Street is going to become a minor junction when the majority of traffic comes or goes along it? After all the City Council decided that Magdalen Street should be a bus lane thereby diverting all traffic along Palace Street some years ago. Joined up thinking there! Plus what is actually wrong with the layout as it is? When was the last time a lorry hit the Cathedral Gates when they are away from the side of the road? Another waste of money.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Drayton Resident

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • doublebubble009 Agree totally. While it costs me around £12 to being my family into the city by bus ill always opt to use my car and park (£5) instead. Seeing as many buses drive around half empty why they don't lower the costs to encouraging more people on ill never know.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Until they make buses cost efficient I will be sticking with my car. I have two 5yr olds so cycling is not an option with the city having so many hillsslopes that they can't cycle up. Weekly bus passes for us all comes to £45 whereas it only costs £20 a week for the car (including insurance and tax). These changes are just going to cause a bottle neck as narrowing the road to widen footpaths and bring in a cycle path means when the buses pullover there will be no room to overtake. This will just cause a traffic build up, right back to the Mall car park and further.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    doublebubble009

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Biglinglers, so you would actually like to further ligitamise cylists as formal road users via taxation and the wearing of licence plates?? Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @NigelS oh you're funding it via your council tax and rates. Same funds that pay for roads and pavements also pay for cycle lanes.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @biglingers you said some "form of road tax" and I explained cyclists pay the same amount as motorists. Simple. PS. I drive too.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • As a motorist I am frequently reminded by cyclists that my "road tax" is in fact a pollution tax. So I for one am glad that I am not directly funding, via taxation, the handover of all the city centre roads to cyclists!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    NigelS

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @monkeynuts, I said some form of tax - never mentioned ved. By the way, thank you - I've learnt something today I wasn't aware of - I drive!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    biglingers

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @oldtimer as a cyclist, today I was given cause to whinge about a blue van man who nearly ran me off the road. However that is not relevant to this conversation. Some cyclist ride on pavements, so do some drivers. Some cyclists skip red lights, so do some drivers. Some cyclists don't indicate, so do many drivers. And as for "generally flouting every traffic law created", I think drivers are much more at fault of this than cyclists. Yes some cyclists are bad, but so are some drivers. It bugs me when cyclists break the law, but it also bugs me when drivers do. Everyone should follow the rules. I speak as a pedestrian, cyclist AND a driver as I do all these.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    GWhizz

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @oldtimer "Why do we have a desire to placate cyclists" You're missing the point. Current cyclists don't care too much about such schemes, they are happy with the current infrastructure. One primary reason for schemes like this is to encourage non cycles out of their cars and onto bikes. Families, kids, oaps etc. Its about making the city a nicer, more "livable" place.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @biglingers. There's always one, congratulations. Road tax... No such thing. Sorry. Are you talking about VED which is calculated on co2? Given that around 2million motorists don't pay it because they drive hybrids I don't see how cyclists paying it would change your attitude. As for registration, been talked about, will never be implemented because meany reason I doubt you care about. BTW, why blame cyclists for a self inflicted tax, no ones forcing you to drive a CO2 emitting vehicle. Buy a hybrid.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • As a driver of PCV vehicles around the city there are some points I would dearly love somebody from the council explain to me. Why do we have a deep driven desire to placate cyclists, who have been given the right to ride in bus lanes as well as their own cycle lanes? In my opinion, as a professional driver, I would like to see some sort of policing of cyclists who continually whinge about motorist whilst riding on pavements, totally ignoring red traffic lights, refusing point blank to signal their intentions and generally flouting every traffic law created

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    oldtimer

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • What's that? 2 way cycle path. Wait for the accidents. Waste of money. I have used Tombland twice in 3 days and find nothing wrong with it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JEN

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • monkeynuts - when cyclists pay some form of roadtax and have registration (number plate?), maybe I'll be sympathetic? Anyway, you can cheer, I've sold my house (stc) and am heading out of this 'fine' city - after 30yrs, i've had enough.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    biglingers

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @jeffbridges769 " If people obeyed the rules maybe the council wouldn't need to waste another £800K." we can only hope. BTW, im pretty sure the £800k is from a central government fund. Its not being taken from the local council coffers.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • As a Motorcyclist I'm fairly impartial in the Cyclist Motorist debate, but this is what i see Every Day: the vast, over-whelming majority of cyclists don't indicate their intentions to.. well, Anything!! but then, neither do Motorists! Most Driver's in Norwich seem to think that a Traffic Light changing to Red means "Oh go on then, just two or three more Cars then..", but then, Cyclists seem to think Red Lights don't apply to them at all!!... The Motorist Cyclist arguement will go on forever, or until people in general stop thinking that they themselves are any more important than everybody elso on the road!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alfadog

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Andy T - I have a very good job and a nice car thanks. I also had a good education where I was taught the difference between "your" and "you're"! I was just pointing out that certain sections of society choose not to obey the rules, be it cyclists or people who think they're better than the rest. If people obeyed the rules maybe the council wouldn't need to waste another £800K.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    jeffbridges769

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Another monumental cock up is about to be actioned, What makes these desk jockeys think they know what's best for cyclists pedestrians and motorists, when they never ask what they want? Just foist a plan on them and say get on with it. when all they have to do is, do away with a footpath each side of the road and put a double one on one side for pedestrians and cyclists alike, Like on the continent, it's worked there for years!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John Beevis

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Small point...regarding the cycle path. If cyclists wish to travel towards Wensum Street the cycle path is useless.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Here we go again, Magdalen Street last week, Tombland this week, what's next on the agenda for Council, more aid for the cyclist, and please don't reply to me, I pay my taxes, we all pay taxes, but taxes are often spent wrongly. and this is another scheme

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Derek McDonald

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @Andy T: Id say both cyclists and motorist are about as lax as each other when it comes to indicating (though technically speaking its harder, potentially very dangerous to cycle and indicate on a roundabout, but whats motorists excuse?). The issue though from a cycling angle is one of danger. A cyclist is not a ton or two of protected metal that can kill. Many seem to forget this.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • This seems like a very good idea. As the picture at the top of the article, an enormous amount of space has been given over to traffic and traffic separation. It greatly disfigures the historic area. A much more sensitive piece of highway design could enhance the conservation area and be of benefit to city residents, visitors and local businesses. A signal-controlled junction with pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities [Toucan crossing = "two can" cross] will be much safer than the present free-for-all.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JCW

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • jeffbridges769 - the main thing is that your not bitter or jealous... Like Clarkson said .. "Get a job. Buy a car". Seriously though, monkeynuts complains that car drivers don't indicate their intentions. When was the last time you saw some clown on a bike give a driver any warning of their intentions? At least cars have brake lights! And btw not all roads go where I want to go either.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Andy T

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Im not a car driver but a pedestrian and i walk into the city quite a lot. I have to say that cyclists behaviour in Norwich is dreadful. As one of previous correspondents said they ride on pavements because they think they should be able to, in spite of it being illegal and woe betide any pedestrian who doesent get out of way. They ignore traffic signs on many occasions and are a damm nuisance not letting buses or cars past them, slowing bus journeys down.. What Norwich needs is a decent public transport system to discourage people from using cars and as long as we have such a rubbish company as First Bus running many services, few buses in evenings to anywhere and no money spent on it by governments, that wont happen. If you go to Europe to similar cities like Norwich,they dont seem to have any problems with getting around, but they spend ,money on decent transport systems, unlike the UK.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    june muskett

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @Eric Jarvis have you every noticed how many cycle lanes don't go where the cyclist actually wants to go? Or often requiring the cyclist to give way much more often than if they where on the road, how many of them are down right dangerous, or how many of them are shared with pedestrians, or how many of them have glass in them, or how about those ones that require a cyclist to get of there bike and run across roundabouts between traffic etc (I could go on)? Have you ever considered these things? As for fines, sure...Fine them, as long we can fine motorists who fail to take the most direct route to a destination. Sound good? BTW. The roads public, you know that too right?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Has anyone noticed, where cycle lanes are put in place o cyclists, how few o them use them? They nearly ride on the pavement or the road and ignore the cycleway. Where there are designated cycle routes cyclists should be fined if they do not use tem.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Eric Jarvis

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Looks like yet another bottle neck created, I'm so pleased I don't travel into the city anymore. Just a waste of time, I can spend my money elsewhere.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    parkeg1

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @el84 If "cyclists had any legal responsibility placed onto them". Like?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Norwich is an old historical city which modernising doesnt suite, a lot of these drivers dont want to be in the city so a decent ring road is the real solution.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    gerry mitson

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Amazed there aren't any comments (yet) from polluting car van drivers complaining about all this money being spent on cyclists & pedestrians when "they don't even pay road tax", which doesn't exist btw. And in my experience, the major problem for pedestrians using the footpath isn't with cyclists on the pavement, it's with ignorant drivers illegally parking on the pavement & causing obstruction, as jeffbridges769 mentioned.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    DocScott

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • monkeynuts...You obviously know nothing about why cyclists use footpaths. It has nothing to do with unsafe roads. I live on a very quiet estate & adults, not just children. CHOOSE to ride on the footpath here, rather than on a safe to use road. Cyclists do what they do, monkeynuts, simply because no one stops them from doing what they want to when they want to it. If cyclists had any legal responsibility placed onto them, then & only then would see the roads & footpaths become safer.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    el84

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Ridiculous. What a joke.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Parsnip

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @Whiley Boy. Well you know what they say.... If can't beat them join them ;)

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @jeffbridges769. You have mistaken my statement as acknowledgment that's its okay. Its not. I'm simply pointing out the reason why these things happen. If the roads where safe for cyclists cyclists wouldn't feel the need to cycle elsewhere would they?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • This doesn't make sense, seeing as they are going to have cyclists and busses only down Magdalen Street by 2016.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Whiley Boy

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • monkeynuts - so from your nutty example, should pedestrians start using the roads because cyclists are making footpaths dangerous? You're not right in the head.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    jeffbridges769

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • @biglingers. I wonder if there is any connection with roads not being safe for cyclists and cyclists cycling on the pavement.....?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Good.I use that roundabout twice a day and on a bike it is dangerous. Cars rarely indicate their intentions, and because its quite small its hard to gauge what the motorist is going to do until they are right onto of you. As for "banning cars" comments. frank young is correct. It cant go on, many are put off from visiting the city because of all the cars. Going some way to fixing the congestion will help everyone.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • A few comments about car "banning" in the city centre. You're not being banned, the Council are merely making room for other road users in a city centre dominated by vehicles that are increasingly too lardy for the environment they're in. You will still be able to sit nose to tail in splendid isolation in the city centre, just as you do today.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • I would like to point out that this money was awarded to the council from the department of health it is not being taken out of our budget! I for one think the city is in need of a radical re think of how cars, cyclists, buses and pedestrians move around the city!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Jack Lemmon

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • I would have assumed that the council wants most traffic to pass down Palace Road. I also suspect that if this was the case cyclists and buses would struggle to emerge into Tombland. Like Jeff Bridges my biggest personal gripe is with traffic for the Norwich School, but other cyclists might take issue with the current roundabout. As a motorist I usually drive into the city along Palace Road and out via some other route, my self imposed gyratory.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    George Ezekial

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • The biggest problem at that junction is the toffs in their oversized German cars stopping on double yellows, on the crossing and even driving up the pavement so they can drop off Harriet and Tarquin for the private school. Never anybody there to stop them. It seems we don't live in a classless society after all.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    jeffbridges769

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Why not just ban all traffic in the city, and have done with it - oop's, what would our councillors do with their pet project taken away? Mind, the cyclists wouldn't notice any difference, as most of them use the FOOTpath anyway!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    biglingers

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • I am lucky enough to have moved out of the city center, now I have a choice, and I choose never to go there and I take my money elsewhere or I shop on line - SIMPLES.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    outspoken

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Does Norwich Council have a committee of especially stupid people who sit there all day thinking of increasing senseless ways of wasting tax payer’s money?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk John

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • I always thought the majority of the traffic was going between Palace Street and Tombland, not Wensum. What they're not saying is that this is supposed to tie-up with the two-way cycling on Magdallen and is another way to cause traffic chaos (can you imagine all those vehicles waiting in Palace St to pull out? It'll queue back to the Whitefriars roundabout at peak times). Once again the ee dee pee has failed to investigate fully with a Freedom of Information request for the accident statistics in the area, and the council will railroad another part of their car banning scheme.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Making roads safer for everyone has to be good. Some people on here seem to think injuries to people not in cars are acceptable collateral damage for being able to drive anywhere at any speed. Would you still think the same way if someone in YOUR family was seriously injured because a loud minority stopped safer road design?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Anglianjacky

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • No mention of what the accident record shows as the cause of the accidents at the roundabout. So apparently the road is being altered because of a meaningless statistic, not a known cause for the statistic. Or on the fact that moving a pedestrian crossing very close to a road junction that is onto onto a busy road will be creating a new potential accident black spot as drivers are asked to make too many quick judgements about not just is it clear to pull out, but is the crossing about to be used..This is known to cause drivers to need to look away from traffic & thus make a four way check onto a busy road.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    el84

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Removing the roundabout may provide a significant area at that point, but will this not soon disappear for the so called lorries with widening paths and cycle lanes. Will the rest of the road take the wider paths, the bus stops, the bus lane at the end?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    WTH

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Councillors and their 'pet' schemes. They'll probably spend more on inquiries than on the works.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Patrick

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • How about repairing some of the assault courses you call roads first, to keep spending all this money on stupid schemes is ludicrous, 24 hr bus lanes etc, either ban all vehicles from the city centre or make things easier for ALL traffic, not just pedestrians and cyclists, of which I am both incidentally. Rant Over!!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    peter99

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Not sure why they are bothering with this anyway. With the current "ban all cars" attitude it won't be long before its cyclists and pedestrians only in this area along with the rest of the city centre.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Winger63

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • - 'oooohh, change, how frightening'. You clearly don't try riding a bike through the area, or you'd have a better understanding of the proposal. Sounds a sensible proposal to me..... and what a surprise, it does actually cost something to do something.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tressells Broadbrush

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • What a load of old tosh these people talk. Spending money unnecessarily which we don't have yet again. Amazing how these things spring up just after an election, never just before.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    IT Man

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

  • Silly seasons started early I see!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Marigold

    Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Sunny

Sunny

max temp: 25°C

min temp: 18°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT