15 May 2006
Alien approach to digging up the road
There is something faintly alien about the way Norwich City Council organises its roadworks. The most recent bizarre example was the decision to close the bridge on Carrow Road at the same time as resurfacing Riverside Road, thus ensuring that traffic was backed up all the way round Riverside with no alternative route to take.
Obviously road works, like canals on Mars, have to happen. But the council’s policy of permanently closing selected roads to general traffic means that when road works occur, water mains burst or any other temporary calamities strike, there are no alternative routes, and gridlock ensues. The closure of King Street, Mountergate, Bishop’s Bridge and Queen Street spring to mind, not to mention Castle Meadow. You get the impression the council enjoys this in a non-human sort of way. A letter I received warning of the impending chaos on Riverside Road said almost gleefully that there would be “disruption and inconvenience”. It came from an officer who I will not embarrass by naming him. He concluded by promising: “If you have any queries or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
I did not hesitate. I live in a cul de sac that emerges on to Riverside Road, and I could see that there would be at least a short time when I would not be able to drive out of it. It would be helpful to know when that would be.
Unfortunately the letter did not include a phone number or an e-mail address. It did not include a pigeon either. I concluded that, despite what they said, they were not desperately keen to hear from me.
Undeterred, I rang City Hall. The number was in the phone book, which the council had mistakenly allowed me to retain. Unfortunately the gentleman who would have been able to help me was out. “He often is,” I was told when I rang back the next day, as requested.
This was quite understandable, and sadly he had no friends who could help me. So the switchboard mistress gave me his e-mail address. I e-mailed him. He did not reply. (The road is resurfaced now, and he still has not replied.)
So I gave up and drove down my cul de sac, only to be halted by the resurfacers, who looked human. I was indignant. My wife had an appointment, I said.
You’ll only be shut in for an hour, I was told. Surprisingly, I had not allocated an extra hour for the journey. At this point I have to admit that the resurfacers were not only human but extremely helpful – and polite. They got us out within ten minutes. And did an excellent job on the road too.
And I’m not worried. Now that the Green Party holds the balance of power in the city council, I’m sure we’ll get a lot more rational, deeply thought out, philosophical measures to enable traffic to flow more easily. Something like a hyperspace bypass, I should imagine.
The art of jumping on the environment
The proposed transformation of sand into giant sculptures on Yarmouth beach this summer was greeted by the mayor with enthusiasm.
“It is environmentally friendly,” he said. “At the end you can just level out the beach again.”
This is an interesting new approach to art. Presumably the mayor would prefer Michelangelo’s David if it was smashed up and the marble returned to the ground after a month or so; your average Turner or Monet would be no good at all because it is so difficult to dispose of paint safely.
Or is it just another example of wanting to appear green – this century’s favourite colour by a long way?
Both Opposition political parties seem to think the best way they can attract votes is to turn themselves into branch offices of Greenpeace. If one leader can ride a bike to work, the other can go and look at a glacier. Or was it the same one?
Meanwhile, the Church makes climate change a question of morality, for heaven’s sake, and scientists from every discipline fall over themselves to conjure up a scenario worse than the last one. I myself am very fond of the environment – the less affected by mankind, the better I like it. I despise litter-dropping and fly-tipping and am no lover of smoke stacks, or industry that pollutes and exploits either people or the atmosphere.
But I am not at all fond of those who are obsessed at more and more superficial levels with what might be happening to our ever-changing climate, and arrogantly forcing their methods of “dealing with it” on to everyone else. Undoubtedly rising sea levels and warmer weather would have severe consequences for some people and beneficial effects for others. But if we are so concerned about vulnerable people, why not put the money frittered away on second-guessing the climate into dealing with diseases like malaria and Aids in Africa, and making sure everyone has clean water? Dealing with it now, I mean.
Not many centuries ago, higher sea levels meant Yarmouth didn’t exist, and eventually the beach may again be even more levelled out than the mayor would like. This would be a tragedy for some people.
But other people are living with tragedy now, and a party of any colour that actually did something about it would get my vote.
Too much stoicism over bumps in the road
I will never be convinced that speed humps are a good idea, but at least many of those on public highways nowadays are negotiable without pain or damage.
Some still aren’t, but our usual British stoicism has failed to produce sufficient outrage to persuade those in authority to get them right. And off-road humps are still frequently dangerous. The one at the western entrance to Eaton Park in Norwich is so outrageously bad, for instance, that even council lorries drive through the parking spaces (when possible) to avoid it.
Hotels and conference centres also tend to insert random and intrusive humps on entrance drives where they are totally unnecessary. Presumably they’re more worried about people suing them for being mown down by cars than for having their vertebrae dislodged or suspensions systems wrecked. I hope they are quickly disillusioned.
I’m thinking of boycotting hotels with humps and suggest other motorists do the same.