please empty your brain below
This is very good news for us locals, I for one am far happier to walk a little further in order to cross in safety than to risk rushing across an exit from the roundabout that vehicles appear to think is not worth the effort it takes to flip their indicator switch for.

Fishislandskin | 29.07.15 - 7:20 a.m. | #

fame at last - a link in a consultation report

Am I the only one who can't see the picture?

timbo | 29.07.15 - 7:38 a.m. | #

Optimal, optimise - the art of trying to satisfy everyone. The best for pedestrians would be to stop all the cars. The best for cars would be to close all the pedestrian crossings. So in the real world some solution between the two extremes is necessary to OPTIMISE the solution. Clearly what is optimal for me might not be optimal for you; from such debates, Blogs are made!

100andthirty | 29.07.15 - 8:00 a.m. | #

Lets face it...this, like many other parts of London, is just not designed or able to cope with the increases of traffic/people. And yet the issue of population growth (especially in London) which results in more cars, bus journeys, pedestrians, cyclists, goods vehicle deliveries, construction vehicle movements, noise, pollution etc is not being seen as needing looking at.

Grumpy Anon | 29.07.15 - 8:36 a.m. | #

I've weighed up the costs and benefits of using designated crossings on my way to work versus using my own initiative and judgement, and come down in favour of the former on the basis that I do a lot of thinking on the walk to work and this way I don't have to devote too much brain power to crossing the road but can continue on autopilot.

Sarah | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 8:54 a.m. | #

In the long run there is no dilemma. Cities are for people.

A lot of the traffic is generated by driving short distances because the alternatives, walking and cycling, are so unpleasant.

You only have to look at how quiet the roads are during the school holidays. All that missing traffic is parents driving their kids short distances to schools because they are too frightened to let them cycle or walk.

JonF | 29.07.15 - 9:21 a.m. | #

Can see the picture now.

The area would be much brighter if the flyover really was transparent!

timbo | 29.07.15 - 9:48 a.m. | #

@JonF, ehem, it is because the Bow roundabout IS the route east-west, and a key point for changing to north-south (& all the variations in between)for people using vehicles (all types)in and out of east London that it is a problematic junction. The fact that more dwellings are being located closer and closer to this junction means that the pedestrian problem becomes ever harder and the problems for cyclists and other vulnerable users of vehicles increase also.

B | 29.07.15 - 10:44 a.m. | #

@B
" the Bow roundabout IS the route east-west, and a key point for changing to north-south"

All wheeled and foot traffic is squeezed into this area because there are very few other crossings of the Lea nearby - or of the railway. But But it needn't be like that - the Lee Navigation has a towpath - the railway formation is being widened for Crossrail and could easily have incorporated a pedestrian and cycle path alongside.
The river and railway have grade separation of, respectively, the A11 and the A12 (although 'twas not always thus, as the name of Stratford indicates!)
The cycle superhighway could therefore have been routed from Bow Church to Stratford by building a dedicated path alongside the DLR and the new Crossrail viaduct, avoiding the Bow roundabout altogether, with a connection to the towpath to allow access to/from the SE side of the junction.

timbo | 29.07.15 - 12:06 p.m. | #

Regardless of some maybe sub-optimal details, this is basically good news that will save lives - really.

(I notice that DG's inner mathematician is showing, in "essentially because the new links form a tree rather than a loop").

Malcolm | 29.07.15 - 12:16 p.m. | #

Seems like a brilliant way of purging society of those people dumb enough to think that getting to Tesco 30 seconds sooner is more important than actually being alive.

Simon | 29.07.15 - 12:20 p.m. | #

Well you'd think so, Simon, but currently the only option for crossing the roundabout is the "getting to Tesco 30 seconds early" dash, and nobody's died yet.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 12:27 p.m. | #

"Lets face it...this, like many other parts of London, is just not designed or able to cope with the increases of traffic/people. And yet the issue of population growth (especially in London) which results in more cars, bus journeys, pedestrians, cyclists, goods vehicle deliveries, construction vehicle movements, noise, pollution etc is not being seen as needing looking at."

It's not just in London Grumpy Anon, it is everywhere, particularly in the south-east.

And still the governmint are pushing district councils to allow yet more houses to be build, and insist that another runway is built at LHR (rather than up north, where it makes more sense for it to be, as the infrastructure/jobs will then follow).
You only build on countryside once.

Anyone who has more than their replacement number of kids (ie one per person) should receive no financial help at all from the rest of us taxpayers. The myth that we need lots of kids for the future is just that, a myth.

People should not be seen as economic units, which is all they are now, in any official system/statistics.

Blue Witch | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 12:56 p.m. | #

I agree with Blue Witch that people should not be seen as economic units.

But nor should they be seen as unfit to make their own decisions, whether it is to have children, or to live in the South East. Or indeed to live in Britain.

While the earth, or any part of it, does not require replacement levels of children, we should remember that replacement level is a /surviving average/ of two children per couple. As some individuals cannot, or do not wish to have children, such an average will only result if some couples have more than two.

Malcolm | 29.07.15 - 2:58 p.m. | #

DG reminds us that no pedestrian has yet died at Bow roundabout. But many pedestrians have died elsewhere on London roads, and I suspect that, without intervention, it would have only been a matter of time.

And three cyclists have died there, according to the BBC.

Malcolm | 29.07.15 - 3:02 p.m. | #

"While the earth, or any part of it, does not require replacement levels of children, we should remember that replacement level is a /surviving average/ of two children per couple. As some individuals cannot, or do not wish to have children, such an average will only result if some couples have more than two."

As the world already has more population than can be supported in the long term, it would be very helpful if people didn't keep adding to the population problem. A maximum of replacement level only reproduction is what is needed.

China had the right idea, until recently, when the increasing wealth of the country led to some slackening of the one-child only policy in cities.

Why some people think they will only ever be whole/happy if they pop out umpteen kids I have absolutely no idea. But I'm quite sure that someone will attempt to 'educate' me ;)

Years ago flouride was put into the drinking water in certain areas. Perhaps contraceptives in water is what is needed now.

Oh - wait, what's that? There are high levels of hormones already in the water in many areas now, from human and animal excrement and processing (ever thought that that might be/almost certainly is linked with some heatlh problems?).

No easy answers, but it is sad that the issues aren't even being properly debated, let alone addressed.

Blue Witch | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 3:15 p.m. | #

#Grumpy Anon and #Blue Witch

Agree with your sentiments. My twopennarth is:

Why are polititians obsessed with building more houses (or rather ugly high rise and block rabbit hutches). Why do they think it's OK to cram more and more people into London and elswhere? It is already overpopulated. Not only do we need dis-incentives for more than 2 children we need to curb totally anymore imigration. These are the real problems, NOT the shortage of housing. STOP BUILDING!

Sorry about the thread drift DG. I never started it though.

Agent Z | 29.07.15 - 4:12 p.m. | #

Bow roundabout, anyone?

diamond geezer | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 5:18 p.m. | #

You may think the point is being missed DG, but, it isn't...

The problem of 'Bow Roundabout' would not be as bad as it is were there not so many people (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians). When I lived at Bow Bridge in the early 80s, one hardly ever saw a pedestrian, let alone a cyclist.

No matter what TfL may attempt do, the problem is only going to get worse in future if the population continues to grow.

The trouble is, people rarely look behind the immediate presenting problems when they think of an issue.

No creative thought and discussion = the (any) basic problem will only ever get worse.

Blue Witch | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 5:50 p.m. | #

Still think your idea was best. Sticking crossing points after the roundabout exits on the West and East axis will increase the possibility that the traffic will tail back onto the roundabout making congestion for the North and South bound entrances to the roundabout and making cyclist less visible to the motorised traffic. I also believe it could also increase the likelihood of the accidents as cars exit the roundabout to be brought to a sudden halt by the crossing lights.

Big Al | 29.07.15 - 9:04 p.m. | #

Wouldn't it be the westbound contraflow (not eastbound) that will be removed? I presume this would be the former 'shortcut' from Marshgate Lane to the Bow roundabout, which I used to use when I worked on Carpenter's Rd pre 2012.

Jeremy D | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 11:22 p.m. | #

No, it's the eastbound contraflow (on the westbound carriageway) that's being removed. The westbound contraflow to Marshgate Lane remains, else there's no way for emerging traffic to reach the Bow Roundabout without a hideously long diversion via Stratford.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 29.07.15 - 11:35 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy