And yes, my ticket for going through a red light hasn’t helped this, particularly as I think that camera is unnecessary as it on a site where there have not been any accidents since 2004, and no fatal ones since 1999, and it is a fairly new camera.
I think that traffic lights are an inefficient way to control traffic as there is always a gap between lights changing when the road is empty. Traffic lights also arguably add to CO2 emissions, with the electricity used in the lights, and the extra fuel used by drivers idling and then accelerating from a standing start, though I guess this is difficult to quantify. This is one reason why I find it particularly annoying still at times sitting at traffic lights where no traffic comes the other way, though I accept many lights are smarter in this respect nowadays.
Roundabouts without traffic lights are more efficient at controlling traffic as they allow full use of the road with no gaps. Thus adding traffic lights to a roundabout that is not suffering specific congestion issues (e.g. one junction tailing back at busy times), slows down traffic movements, and probably increases CO2 emissions, as there are now gaps in traffic flow that were not there before.
I reluctantly accept that traffic lights are necessary on many junctions where there is no space for a roundabout. However I am completely opposed to traffic lights on roundabouts, except in exceptional circumstances when they should probably only be part-time where possible. In Chester I think removing traffic lights from pretty much all the roundabouts, including the ones added in the 1990s, would improve traffic flow and save the council money. This is presumably not the prevailing view in the highways departments of the UK as they seem to be popping up on roundabouts all over the place.
In times of cut-backs when road surfaces seem to getting worse, there should surely be a focus on getting the basics right, rather than increasing council costs and congestion by adding traffic lights to roundabouts where they are not required.
Chester West and Cheshire Council (CWaC) are introducing a new one-way system in Northwich from the end of January 2012, which I don’t think it needs and will probably make matters worse and I’m not the only one (see comments).
The fundamental problem to me is not the fact that I may have to go a long way round to get into Northwich, but that CWaC don’t understand the traffic flows from a substantial residential area close to the town centre, though I have told CWaC what I will outline below.
The area concerned is in Castle, an area of several hundred houses, a primary school and some businesses, surrounded by the river Weaver and railway lines and to which there are two exits, Darwin Street and Navigation Road. At present most drivers from the area will travel into Northwich town centre via Navigation Road and turn right into Chester Way. This generally works well as cars waiting at the lights will generally let you out. Drivers heading out of Northwich generally go to the end of Darwin Street and turn left onto Chester Road. Turning right out of the end of Darwin Street is slow and generally blocks the majority of people turning left.
The one-way system will prevent people turning right out of Navigation Road, which means to go into town they either have to turn left or go to the end of Darwin Street and attempt to turn right.
Turning left at the end of Navigation Road to go into town will presumably require having two lanes of traffic let you in. However due to the limited space at the end of Navigation Road for people to turn in, I suspect this may not be too bad in one sense as drivers in the lane heading out of town will probably be blocked by drivers trying to turn into Navigation Road and so have no choice but to let them out. Depending on parked cars, in my experience there is generally only room for one or two cars at the end of Navigation road to turn in and all bar one or two cars coming the other way would need to be let out for the cars coming in to proceed. This is likely to cause tailbacks along Chester Way.
Turning right at end of Darwin Street isn’t much better. There is probably normally room for 3-4 cars to pull in before waiting to proceed single file, with a similar number in the queue turning out before those coming in can move on, though it is more likely here that people further up Darwin Street will hold back to let those coming in come through. Chester Road is a major route into Northwich, but is fairly narrow and though there is a right hand turn lane it can only hold a few cars before blocking the traffic coming into Northwich along Chester Road. If a large lorry or bus comes up Chester Road from town, they generally have to wait until the traffic turns into Darwin Street due to legally parked cars on Chester Road, and illegally parked cars sometimes make this worse. Even turning left out of Darwin Street, you are reliant on drivers letting you out at busy times. There is little point trying to let out anybody turning right out of Darwin Street at the moment as drivers turning right in are genererally followed by traffic from traffic lights a short way back, which then ‘under-take’ on the left. In the new regime it may be more advantageous to have a very ‘wide’ car to prevent other cars passing to allow as many cars as possible to get out of Darwin Street to increase the chances of getting in. Otherwise the junction is likely to grind to a complete halt if there are a lot more drivers trying to turn right and those trying to turn in from the right are blocking them and cannot get in themselves.
In summary, I think that the new one-way system will increase congestion around the ends of Darwin Street and Navigation Road, and generally slow down traffic trying to get in or out of Northwich along Chester Road, never mind local residents trying to get out. CWaC, you have wasted enough money on unnecessary changes to roundabouts in Chester. Don’t waste anymore, just leave Northwich alone. It’s fine as it is.
The Strange Hybrid Volvo V60
25/02/2011
I currently drive a second generation Toyota Prius, so I am sold on the idea of Hybrids, but the more I think about it, I find the new Volvo V60 plug-in Hybrid a bit strange for several reasons:
1. It has two separate drive-trains, one for the diesel engine (front wheels) and one for the electric motors (rear wheels). My Prius drives through the front wheels whether powered by the battery or Petrol and I would think switching between driving wheels would be strange in itself.
2. It has a button to switch between ‘Pure’ (electric), ‘Hybrid’ (electric and diesel) and ‘Power’ (diesel), which means you can just drive it as a diesel car. I have an ‘EV’ button in the Prius to force it to use electric only, but there is no equivalent ‘Power’ button. What this means for the Volvo though is that you could buy one of these, be exempt from the London congestion charge (which my Prius no longer is, though I do not drive in London anyway), and yet just drive it as a diesel if you wish.
3. The carbon dioxide and MPG figures don’t make any sense, which is probably a general issue for plug-in hybrids. The V60 Hybrid will allegedly do 150 MPG with 49 g/km of carbon dioxide. This is with a 2.3 litre diesel engine, which if you are running in ‘Power’ mode may give you less than 50 MPG, rather than 150. The plug-in Prius is stated as having 108.6 MPG with 59 g/km of carbon dioxide, which presumably reflects the shorter electric range of the Prius (15 miles vs 30 miles for the Volvo).
This perhaps just reflects a loophole in the way that particularly the carbon dioxide figures are worked out for plug-in hybrids. Taking this to the extreme, could it be possible to have something like a Range Rover with an enormous engine, but with some electric motor range, with carbon dioxide figures that could allow it to be exempt from road tax and the congestion charge? That would be clearly nonsense. It seems to me that a 2.3 litre diesel engine with 30 miles electric range (Volvo) stated as less carbon dioxide than a 1.8 litre petrol engine with 15 miles electric range (Plug-In Prius) may also be nonsense.
On Channel 4 news tonight, there were a succession of MPs complaining about how awful their new expenses scheme is, but it seems pretty similar to any other expenses scheme I have had to claim from.
1. They have to pay for the expense and then claim it back
Uh, yes. I used to travel a lot for work and had to pay for hotels, meals etc myself often and claim them back. My employer used to take about six weeks to pay me, meaning I could easily be owed £3-4000 at any one time, and the money was never paid before I had to pay my credit card bill. This is not ideal, and some firms probably pay quicker, but MPs earn a lot more than I did at the time, so I don’t see why they should be any different.
2. The scheme is really bureaucratic and takes too much time
They should use the civil service scheme, which I did 15 or so years ago. I wanted to claim mileage for a training course, and I think it took me over 2 hours and I had to go and look up various codes and all the rest of it. I used to think the scheme was deliberately designed to prevent people claiming, and suspect the MP’s system isn’t that bad.
3. They messed up the forms and so the claims were rejected
Forms just have to be right first time or they will tend to bounce around various black holes before you see them again. I am assuming that they can actually submit these claims again, and if so where is the problem other than a delay. It just makes sure they will get it right next time.
3. They wouldn’t pay a claim for 50p for milk
I now work for a small company and I would never claim for milk for the office. My boss will tend to bring milk in when he is in, but I inevitably buy milk at times and I don’t keep track of how much I spend. Yes, strictly I am out of pocket and my employer should provide the milk, but it is so little money it is not worth bothering about.
I have no problem with MPs claiming genuine expenses that they are entitled to, I have claimed my expense entitlements in the past. I just think this whinging is a bit hollow.
Update on AAC
01/11/2010
I said some months ago that I would stick to iTunes as I wanted AAC rather than MP3 downloads. However, I haven’t actually done that, and have bought relatively little from iTunes this year. I have mainly been buying from 7 Digital, who have a fair few albums in AAC format, and have also bought some MP3 when they have been significantly cheaper (£5 vs £7.99). The only time I buy from iTunes now is when albums are at the same price as 7 Digital, but 7 Digital only has MP3.
7 Digital also endeared themselves to me by plugging Half Man Half Biscuit and The Fall on their front pages at various points in the year, which I wouldn’t expect from iTunes.
