Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bill Kenikabs Dec 9 2012, 09:08 AM

Why do we have so much traffic in Newbury?? Because it is caught up in the rush to get out ....... the main reason is because the called this ring road the A339 when it should be a B road ensuring that through traffic avoids the town this must lay with Highways and our Goverment lucky they do not drive to Newbury or come shopping here.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 9 2012, 10:38 AM

I don't think it's "through traffic" who in their right mind would drive through Newbury rather than around it if they weren't stopping?

Posted by: Bill Kenikabs Dec 9 2012, 10:46 AM

because they see it as an A road if it were a B road they might avoid it

Posted by: On the edge Dec 9 2012, 10:58 AM

Don't think anyone much takes any notice of A or B. Most of us use what we consider to be the best route. Seems to me biggest issue is lack of alternative north / south routes; even for suberb to suburb traffic.

Posted by: user23 Dec 9 2012, 11:04 AM

Sat Navs don't generally care what classification the road is.

Posted by: Bill Kenikabs Dec 9 2012, 12:57 PM

wow just popped out what is all that traffic doing from Robin Hood going South cannot be shopping??

Posted by: lordtup Dec 9 2012, 04:28 PM

The amount of traffic is directly proportionate to the population and the affluence of that figure .
Newbury is well off in the general demographic so expect a high percentage of car ownership. I appreciate that is scant consolation to Mr and Mrs Joe Soap who needs to get to the supermarket and finds the road clogged with 4x4s as far as the eye can see but if you think Newbury is bad try Oxford or Reading .
Personally I tend to shop at " odd hours" but I know that is not an option for all.

Posted by: thomasalfred Dec 9 2012, 05:20 PM

Yesterday, saturday, the traffic coming out of Parkway to the Robin Hood seemed to have to wait ages for a green light to enter the roundabout.
Not a good way to encourage shoppers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 9 2012, 07:48 PM

That problem has been there since the opening of Parkway.

Posted by: motormad Dec 9 2012, 08:21 PM

More than the above I have noticed, mainly around lunch time that Hambridge Road is packed. The traffic lights at the new construction are causing mayhem at all hours of the day, some cotton onto this and carry on down the A4 by BP which gets equally packed.

These days I go around the back up past Greenham, saves a lot of trouble and time.

But the fact of the matter is that people have free will to travel where they want, when they want, in whatever vehicle they choose. Now I will get irate when sat behind someone doing 28 in a 40 but at the end of the day they have as much right to be there as me.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 9 2012, 08:42 PM

What amazes me is the number of vehicles on the road with defective lights.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 9 2012, 09:45 PM

Just about every large town and city has its traffic problems, not just Newbury.
We are in no way unique and better off than many others from my experience.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 9 2012, 10:33 PM

Manufacturers have also stopped fitting indicators on some of their vehicles.

I really do wonder what our traffic authorities ACTUALLY do sometimes. Surely, if they can put a mobile speed camera in a layby, they can record all those with defective lights, plus number plate. A simple warning in the post to get it sorted or take it off the road would go a long way.

Posted by: Penelope Dec 9 2012, 11:37 PM

If it's defective it probably doesn't have a MOT, or tax or insurance, but do 35 in a 30 limit and suddenly you're a child killing Nazi.

Posted by: motormad Dec 10 2012, 09:15 AM

I think while some people don't notice their lights are out (these are the same people to drive with their sidelights on) but many cars EG most VW's since 2004, Audis, Mercs, etc, all have bulb out warning errors on the dash board. So many of them do know.
It's just that sometimes (and I can understand this up to a point) they don't have the time. Not everyone is as savvy as some of us and struggle to change a lightbulb in their house let alone in their car where it's mostly fiddly. Not everyone can get the time to go to Halfords for example and some people are daft and take it to the main dealer which needs booking in, in most cases.

They ACTUALLY pull people over for driving dangerously and also for no insurance, etc. A car with a failed headlight does not need to be taken "off the road".

Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2012, 11:30 AM

And don't get me started on people who drive in rain without headlights!

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 10 2012, 11:58 AM

LOL,

speeding is far worse than having a bulb blow.

Posted by: motormad Dec 10 2012, 12:53 PM

Well in the rain in clear conditions is fine.
Luckily I have auto headlights which turn on if the wipers are going fast enough or if I go over 95. (not that I do).

Posted by: Darren Dec 10 2012, 05:55 PM

Really?

Any examples as I don't think I've received the ESP receiver yet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 10 2012, 06:42 PM

I think they meant cars now have integrated light clusters, rather than a separate indicator. I must say I don't like this trend as it is not always that easy to see them in daylight.

Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 10 2012, 06:57 PM

I must agree Andy Capp.. Whilst I have no idea what the rear end of my car looks like from the back end of a camel.
US cars near airbases I pass have just the confusing mixed lighting you describe. Bring back hand signals.
Oh the joys of winding down the window to indicate left round St Johns . Annoyingly there was a perfectly good light as well.
ce.

Posted by: Bill Kenikabs Dec 10 2012, 08:09 PM

i think nearly all cars have light out markers on them even my old vectra with 250000 miles still tell me if a bulb out, I once had a 82 ford granada even told me which bulb was out and even which door was not closed properly did not tell me how to drive but it did tell me if a fault wonderful car

Posted by: Penelope Dec 10 2012, 10:07 PM

I think he was going in heavy on the irony.

Posted by: x2lls Dec 10 2012, 10:39 PM

A victim of my own sarcasm!

Posted by: motormad Dec 11 2012, 09:19 AM

Just wait until you get a good car!


Most cars don't have lights out warning.. EG My friends 61 plate Corsa SRI doesn't. Neither does my Mother's Toyboata.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 11 2012, 01:55 PM

Any car being used as a taxi has to have a range of warning lights, as professional drivers don't expect to have to do mundane things like check for themselves......

Posted by: Penelope Dec 11 2012, 04:14 PM

or look where they're going.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 11 2012, 09:11 PM

I saw a taxi nearly intentionally drive at someone today (about half five), by the roundabout near the Jobcentre. I'm pretty sure it had a Kenikab sticker on the side. Not all that relevant but I do think professional drivers and Taxi drivers are in a different league.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 11 2012, 09:58 PM

Might I suggest you intend that they are in different leagues?

Posted by: royston Dec 16 2012, 09:01 AM

Coming back to the original rant about traffic using the A339, a good deal of this is en route to Basingstoke after coming off the A34 north of Newbury because its a good deal shorter than going to ToT Hill or going all the way to Join the the A303 then driving east to Basingstoke. and who can blame them ?

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 16 2012, 09:37 AM

That's right - this, and the heavy traffic at Thatcham Level Crossing, is a result of the by-pass being built on the wrong side of Newbury.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 16 2012, 12:56 PM

Almost time for a ring road I reckon.

Posted by: Penelope Dec 16 2012, 12:58 PM

Yes, a ring rd, around the ring rd that's currently going past the ring rd. I'll vote for that.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 16 2012, 01:17 PM

Have you been down the pub?.

Posted by: Penelope Dec 16 2012, 01:21 PM

Wish I had.

Posted by: royston Dec 16 2012, 07:49 PM

could not agree more,said so at time ,argued with planners but they knew best I was only a pleb. so had no view.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 16 2012, 08:21 PM

Remember SPEWBY?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 16 2012, 08:51 PM

I suspect cost to build was a greater concern than where it went.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 17 2012, 09:21 AM

Correct.
Financially (not environmentally) it was cheaper to go West.
Money Talks!!

Posted by: motormad Dec 17 2012, 11:03 AM

Maybe we can have the A25.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 17 2012, 06:49 PM

Environmentally the Eastern route proposed by SPEWBY, carved a swathe by increasing the width across the Newtown Common to dual carriageway and would have caused irrepairable damage to the Thatcham reed beds affecting both resident and migrating birds. It also passed close to a fairly dense housing area affecting 250 homes. The route also required a major junction with the A4 which because of its elevation would be intrusive on the local environment.

Cost was a factor (assuming the extra cost of security was factored out) but for good reason as the SPEWBY route was costed at £80m and the Western route at £47m, almost double but the major reason was that the Eastern propsal did not give a clean bypass route with major curves and almost certain 50mph speed limits on the section that went round the back of the racecourse.

The central routes also proposed were non runners, requiring elevated sections through the town over what is now the A339 and rough costings were over £110m.

Initially, the inspector was not convinced about the Western route but came to the conclusion that it was the only sensible solution and was the less damaging route.

He did say in conclusion that when the bypass was completed, it would not solve Newbury's traffic problems past the design date; 2009. but by then, the local authorities would be able to introduce measures to resolve their residual local traffic problems.

Posted by: nerc Dec 18 2012, 05:37 AM

Most of the vehicles without indicators seem to be the 4 x 4 type cars

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 18 2012, 09:34 AM

It certainly didn't do that!

The by-pass was nothing to do with Newbury's local traffic problems but a way of getting juggernauts from the North and Midlands to the South Coast without obstruction.
Newbury was in the way of that.
No point in getting into the by-pass debate as it was dead and gone the day construction started.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 18 2012, 09:41 AM

It was bleedin obvious this was the case at the time. The local politicos just jumped on the local bandwagon claiming it was a Newbury Issue.

The A34 is just a small part of the E05 Algiceras - Greenock route & the bit around Newbury was one of only a few bottlenecks on the entire 3000km route.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 18 2012, 10:01 AM

Yes he did didn't he?
Same guy who claims he was single handedly responsible for the building of Newbury "Community" Hospital.
You know, the one with no A&E!

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 18 2012, 08:06 PM

Probably explains why he is no longer the local MP....

Posted by: JeffG Dec 18 2012, 08:29 PM

Did the old hospital have a fully functioning A & E? I don't remember.

(And isn't it about time Google Maps had an update? https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.394868,-1.327103&spn=0.002895,0.008256&t=h&z=18 )

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 18 2012, 08:50 PM

No, not at the end anyway. Light injuries and burns.

Posted by: Penelope Dec 18 2012, 09:06 PM

Do you mean poor poetry spoken in a heavy Scottish accent?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 18 2012, 10:09 PM

Most certainly, and don't forget those horrid 'sausages' either.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 19 2012, 09:45 AM

No, but the building of a new one was an ideal, missed opportunity to provide one don't you think?

Posted by: Penelope Dec 19 2012, 09:55 AM

Which would explain the light injuries I suppose.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 19 2012, 10:00 AM

Caused by not employing a qualified electrician.

Posted by: motormad Dec 19 2012, 10:15 AM

Most qualified ones aren't much better.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2012, 11:49 AM

Yes, politics at work.

We filled the green gap between Thatcham and Newbury with a poorly designed and ill equipped facility which is unlikely to meet the needs of a growing population. No Casualty, No maternity unit and the need to expand by installing a second hand industrial cabin soon after construction.

Well at least we don't need to provide a urine sample; our local planners have already taken it.

Posted by: royston Dec 19 2012, 11:54 AM

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 20 2012, 12:00 PM

Ugly building too.
Talk about the BT Tower, at least they have the excuse that it was built in the 60's!

Posted by: JeffG Dec 20 2012, 01:36 PM

In what way? I can't say I've noticed. It's functional and does the job it was designed for. It's off the road so you will only see it if you're going there.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2012, 07:22 AM

I agree but I didn't say that.
I just think, personally, that it is an ugly building.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/memorial-service-at-west-berkshire-community-hospital/west-berkshire-community-hospital-newbury

Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2012, 08:03 AM

Yes, its functional. Clearly designed by a civil engineer rather than an architect, quite pedestrian and demonstrably cheap. Certainly doesn't blend with or make best use of the site. There was an earlier drawing which showed a long low building with a pitched roof which was much more in keeping with the surroundings. Think that got lost with the arguments on who funded. With PFI you get what you are given and therefore designs and builds are imposed.

Posted by: Darren Dec 23 2012, 06:12 PM

Surely the money for the project should be spend on what happens inside? As long as the outside is weather-resistant, what the building actually looks like it at the bottom of the list of priorities?

The headline when it opened could have read

"Hospital scandal. Wins architectural award but no money left to equip it or even turn the lights on. Architect - I was told to make it look nice."

Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2012, 06:20 PM

At the end of the day that's really all that matters. Trouble is, you then get these old gits twittering on about the 'look' of the BT building and how awful Starbucks were for ripping a few old green tiles off a shop front. Does really good design cost money?

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 24 2012, 09:17 AM

Agreed, but would it have cost that much more, if any at all, to make it look nicer?
If all buildings were designed on your basis as above then it would be a pretty horrendous place to live would it not?
And Prince Charles would not be a happy man!!
Would you buy a house that looked like a box?
PS. The rip off parking fees charged at hospitals could be used to make the buildings a little more aesthetic?

Posted by: blackdog Dec 24 2012, 10:41 AM

As one of those old gits I guess I should respond. Personally I preferred the look of the old cottage hospital to the replacement and also bemoan the loss of hospital facilities in the town since they closed both the cottage hospital and Sandleford. The cheap as chips monstrosity built on the supposed 'green belt' between Thatcham and Newbury serves two purposes - pretending to be a replacement for our lost hospitals while setting a planning precedent for the inevitable closure of the green gap.

We used to have a maternity unit, we used to have surgeons operating in Newbury. Now we have a PFI funded jerry built set of waiting rooms. The PFI means the local health trust will be paying through the nose for it for years - while two former hospital sites are now covered in flats, in Sandleford's case making someone a very nice profit.