IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury Gridlock
On the edge
post Oct 9 2016, 08:11 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Oct 9 2016, 04:30 PM) *
Nothing like doing a 4 mile detour when you only want to do a few hundred yards journey is there? rolleyes.gif


All pretty sad really because it yet again illustrates the fundamental weakness of WBC. The problems we are having right now are really because there is a lack of crossings over canal. The Government emergency bridge over the canal was restored 'like for like' single carriageway. Why? WBC is too small to have bridge expertise in the Borough Engineers Department and too proud to ask for help. So we keep our single point of failure in the town centre. Still, it's not as if we want to keep the wheels of commerce rolling, not in a dormitory suburb.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Oct 9 2016, 08:13 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



The by-pass was built to take through traffic from the Midlands to the South Coast away from Newbury centre.
It has achieved this to some extent but has not removed the A339 traffic which is substantial as this road is used as a connect route from the M3 to the M4 among other things.
This has happened because it was built on the financially cheaper West route. Money talks!!
It was not built to take local traffic away even though obviously some use it for this.
Unfortunately the bewildering mindset of our local authority has allowed two new bridges to be built recently, one over the river and one over the railway, both which open up an alternative North - South route and both which cannot be used by the general public!.

EDIT: Typed this as you were yours above OTE.
We make a similar point!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 9 2016, 08:43 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



I remember when the new bridge over Park Way was open to all traffic.

It used to queue back past the library and even over the bridge sometimes during rush hour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Oct 9 2016, 08:45 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 08:10 PM) *
Yes, and we've both used it to by-pass the middle of Newbury recently. I'm not sure how this negates my point.

Yes, but the A339 was built to bypass the centre of Newbury. The new trunk road wasn't put there as a way across town. The fact it is being used that way (and I use it regularly to get from town (clock tower) to Buckingham Rd which is a ridiculous detour) is symptomatic of a failure of Newbury's town planning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 9 2016, 08:47 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 09:43 PM) *
I remember when the new bridge over Park Way was open to all traffic.

It used to queue back past the library and even over the bridge sometimes during rush hour.


See Newres response about another Department, Planning. It seems the issue at WBC is institutionalised.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 9 2016, 08:48 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 9 2016, 09:13 PM) *
The by-pass was built to take through traffic from the Midlands to the South Coast away from Newbury centre.
It has achieved this to some extent but has not removed the A339 traffic which is substantial as this road is used as a connect route from the M3 to the M4 among other things.
This has happened because it was built on the financially cheaper West route. Money talks!!
It was not built to take local traffic away even though obviously some use it for this.
Unfortunately the bewildering mindset of our local authority has allowed two new bridges to be built recently, one over the river and one over the railway, both which open up an alternative North - South route and both which cannot be used by the general public!.

EDIT: Typed this as you were yours above OTE.
We make a similar point!


Indeed!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Oct 10 2016, 08:04 AM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 09:43 PM) *
I remember when the new bridge over Park Way was open to all traffic.

It used to queue back past the library and even over the bridge sometimes during rush hour.

To use Parkway Bridge as a route for all traffic would obviously require a design change at the junction (currently with Bear Lane).
Not that difficult?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 10 2016, 08:51 AM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 10 2016, 09:04 AM) *
To use Parkway Bridge as a route for all traffic would obviously require a design change at the junction (currently with Bear Lane).
Not that difficult?

The problem is with KFC and the dry cleaners being in the way of any improvement. Wasn't that unit built on the site of the old pub?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Oct 10 2016, 09:14 AM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 10 2016, 09:51 AM) *
The problem is with KFC and the dry cleaners being in the way of any improvement. Wasn't that unit built on the site of the old pub?

It was indeed, but surely compared with the work currently being undertaken to link the ring road with the Faraday Road the work needed to provide a link from Parkway is not as involved even if the building in question was to be retained?
Unfortunately though, on reflection, the decision to install a single lane bridge makes it all pointless as you would still need traffic light control.
As an aside, during the by-pass protests I remember someone of note (who's name I can't remember, may have been Rendel) saying that it would be the answer to all of Newbury's traffic problems!!! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 10 2016, 03:31 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 10 2016, 09:51 AM) *
The problem is with KFC and the dry cleaners being in the way of any improvement. Wasn't that unit built on the site of the old pub?


They wouldn't be a problem - just connect Wharf Road directly to the roundabout and close Bear Lane between the roundabout and the current Wharf Road junction. Not sure it would make that much difference though, there isn't much extra capacity at the London Road end.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 10 2016, 07:54 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 10 2016, 04:31 PM) *
They wouldn't be a problem - just connect Wharf Road directly to the roundabout and close Bear Lane between the roundabout and the current Wharf Road junction. Not sure it would make that much difference though, there isn't much extra capacity at the London Road end.
Yes, it would need some major re-development at both ends to make it a viable North/South route.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 11 2016, 06:38 AM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 10 2016, 08:54 PM) *
Yes, it would need some major re-development at both ends to make it a viable North/South route.


.......which neatly demonstrates the abject failure of WBC's Planning and Highways departments to work together over the past decades!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 11 2016, 06:46 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2016, 07:38 AM) *
.......which neatly demonstrates the abject failure of WBC's Planning and Highways departments to work together over the past decades!
Not really. Do local people really want another major route running next to Victoria Park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Oct 11 2016, 08:37 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 11 2016, 07:46 PM) *
Not really. Do local people really want another major route running next to Victoria Park?

What's left of it!

As I live near there I'm glad it hasn't happened, but I do wonder why an exit onto the Enborne Rd from the new A34 wasn't put in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 11 2016, 08:49 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 11 2016, 07:46 PM) *
Not really. Do local people really want another major route running next to Victoria Park?


Probably yes, if they were asked directly. And yes, I did get that answer knocking on doors!

Competent and joined up planning would avoid the implications of 'major route'. Ironically, Victoria Park itself is also an example where less than competent and joined up planning Is creating an unnecessary hiatus; which will doubtless find resolution in a sub optimum solution.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 11 2016, 09:16 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2016, 09:49 PM) *
Probably yes, if they were asked directly. And yes, I did get that answer knocking on doors!

Competent and joined up planning would avoid the implications of 'major route'. Ironically, Victoria Park itself is also an example where less than competent and joined up planning Is creating an unnecessary hiatus; which will doubtless find resolution in a sub optimum solution.

You said you don't care what local people think though and you want to end the "postcode lottery" of local choice.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 9 2016, 11:30 AM) *
So what? I seem to remember a very large number round here didn't want the Vodafone development. Isn't the fracking issue a national issue; same reaction can be expected in any locality where it was proposed. In fact, this particular issue demonstrates why centralising things is actually fairer and better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Oct 11 2016, 09:38 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (newres @ Oct 11 2016, 09:37 PM) *
What's left of it!

As I live near there I'm glad it hasn't happened, but I do wonder why an exit onto the Enborne Rd from the new A34 wasn't put in.

Do local people really want another major route running down Enborne Road / Pound Street?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 12 2016, 05:54 AM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 11 2016, 10:16 PM) *
You said you don't care what local people think though and you want to end the "postcode lottery" of local choice.


As with most issues parochial thinking is not the solution, as I'm stressing, its actually the problem. Indeed, the main political parties here care more about votes than people.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Oct 12 2016, 06:05 AM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 11 2016, 10:38 PM) *
Do local people really want another major route running down Enborne Road / Pound Street?

Not if you live there (which I do) but it's a solution to the traffic issues. But no, I absolutely wouldn't want it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 12 2016, 09:38 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (newres @ Oct 12 2016, 07:05 AM) *
Not if you live there (which I do) but it's a solution to the traffic issues. But no, I absolutely wouldn't want it.

With the plethora of chicanes they have put in on the road, I hate to think how many accidents there would be. It's dodgy, even with the current traffic levels.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th April 2024 - 03:54 PM