NO2 Levels in Newbury A339 Options

[Washwaterman]

I suppose no one has thought about removing the traffic lights and allowing traffic to free flow, with the possibility of reducing the NO2 levels.

[Biker1]

Funny how we have 2 threads going at the moment about traffic congestion and NO2 levels in the town approximately 18 years after we were told "the by-pass will solve Newbury's traffic problems once and for all"!

I think we are lead to believe that the traffic lights on the roundabouts are there for safety reasons rather than improving traffic flow?

[Exhausted]

Funny how we have 2 threads going at the moment about traffic congestion and NO2 levels in the town approximately 18 years after we were told "the by-pass will solve Newbury's traffic problems once and for all"!

I think that is a bit of a red herring. Just imagine what the traffic would be like if you add to the current traffic, the flow down the by pass.

[x2lls]

I think that is a bit of a red herring. Just imagine what the traffic would be like if you add to the current traffic, the flow down the by pass.

One or two delays would be far better than the whole town system being gridlocked.
Just look at the robin hood 'crapabout' when you want to go north from Shaw road.

Surely, the traffic could be monitored to feed into computer modelling to sort out what we have is a bloody fuel and time consuming mess.

Whoever is responsible for the light synching through Thatcham for example, needs a rocket up their jacksy!!

[Andy Capp]

Funny how we have 2 threads going at the moment about traffic congestion and NO2 levels in the town approximately 18 years after we were told "the by-pass will solve Newbury's traffic problems once and for all"!

The by pass was never installed to improve Newbury's traffic problems; it was installed to alleviate a North/South traffic black spot

[blackdog]

Funny how we have 2 threads going at the moment about traffic congestion and NO2 levels in the town approximately 18 years after we were told "the by-pass will solve Newbury's traffic problems once and for all"!

The role of the bypass was to solve the A34 traffic's problem with Newbury, not Newbury's problem with traffic.

[On the edge]

Yes, that's right about the bypass, but I suspect Biker is like me, who can remember hearing the likes of dear old Dave Rendel and his chums talking seriously about de trunking the old route and turning it into a single carriage way. I can recall walking away from hearing that when they were round canvassing - trying to turn my OH who was a snail sympathiser!

[motormad]

The lights at the KFC/Sainsburys roundabout?
It would be carnage without them.

All of the light sequences in the area need rethinking and reprogramming with some common sense though. Plenty of times they stop you when there's nothing coming, to slow you down.

[spartacus]

Plenty of times they stop you when there's nothing coming, to slow you down.

Perhaps that's part of their function in a built up area, acting as a speed control...

[motormad]

or where I just floor it to get through them...?

*And no Exhausted, I don't actually do that.

[Turin Machine]

But the best part is that part of the plan to lower NoX levels is to allow thousands more houses plus God knows how many distribution depots to surround the town. "Elementary my dear Watson".

[Strafin]

The lights at the KFC/Sainsburys roundabout?
It would be carnage without them.

In the few times I have seen them fail, the general feedback has been that traffic has flowed better. I don't know about any official statistics, but unofficially people seem to prefer it.

[Biker1]

The by pass was never installed to improve Newbury's traffic problems; it was installed to alleviate a North/South traffic black spot

The role of the bypass was to solve the A34 traffic's problem with Newbury, not Newbury's problem with traffic.

You are both right if course, but that is how it was sold to the people of Newbury, if you remember, who fell for it hook, line and sinker!
And now, as a result, we are left with congestion and excessive NO2 levels.
When the by-pass was built the opportunity should have been taken to solve Newbury's traffic as well.
Either by using a different route or diverting other traffic round the town with maybe new river and railway crossings, or maybe a combination of both.
The Parkway single carriageway bridge, built by the then Lib Dem council was/is a farce!

[Biker1]

In the few times I have seen them fail, the general feedback has been that traffic has flowed better. I don't know about any official statistics, but unofficially people seem to prefer it.

Like I said, it is not about traffic flow, it is about safety.
I wonder how many crashes there would be if the lights were taken away at either roundabout?

[Strafin]

I was merely referring to the quote from MM that it would be carnage without them. During those short periods of failure, I don't recall any accidents.

[JeffG]

The Parkway single carriageway bridge, built by the then Lib Dem council was/is a farce!

I agree. But at least one carriageway was better than none, as is the case now.

[Andy Capp]

You are both right if course, but that is how it was sold to the people of Newbury, if you remember, who fell for it hook, line and sinker!

I don't really remember it like that. The decision was based purely on the cheapest option with the least inconvenience (at the time). The route was never selected for any other reason that I can remember being debated. It was common knowledge back then that the by-pass would not cure the traffic problems long term. Here's a link to demonstrate that (regarding the year 1996): http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2530307.stm

I seem to remember David Rendel endorsing the by-pass, but I would imagine that was more about endorsing a by-pass than that particular route.

Like I said, it is not about traffic flow, it is about safety.
I wonder how many crashes there would be if the lights were taken away at either roundabout?

I think it is more about controlling flow AND avoiding accidents that cause tailbacks. The 'death rate' at that junction was never really a concern I doubt.

[spartacus]

In the few times I have seen them fail, the general feedback has been that traffic has flowed better. I don't know about any official statistics, but unofficially people seem to prefer it.

That depends on which approach leg you're on and where you want to get to. I'd bet that on a busy peak period trying to get onto the thing in the first place from the Kings Road/Sainsburys side would be a challenge for inexperienced motorists looking for the gap, whereas motorists using the A339 would think it's an improvement.

[Biker1]

The decision was based purely on the cheapest option with the least inconvenience (at the time). The route was never selected for any other reason that I can remember being debated.

That's right.

It was common knowledge back then that the by-pass would not cure the traffic problems long term.

Not with those without their head in the sand!
The "pro" lobby sold it to supporters in Newbury by saying that it would.

Here's a link to demonstrate that (regarding the year 1996): http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2530307.stm

The link you have provided gives a statement by the anti by-pass groups.
The pro by-pass message was that Newbury would have no traffic issues once open.
Rendel was a staunch promoter of this message.

The question now is ---- We have a by-pass and traffic congestion and pollution levels in Newbury are STILL unacceptable.
So what do we do now??

[Andy Capp]

The pro by-pass message was that Newbury would have no traffic issues once open.

That's not true.

"Yet supporters of the scheme say the new road will provide essential relief to the congested town centre. "