Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Bus lane for A4

Posted by: Bofem Apr 1 2011, 10:49 AM

A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.


Posted by: JeffG Apr 1 2011, 10:55 AM

Rather than have everyone wade through hundreds of pages of council output, could you post a brief summary, please?

Edit - sorry, I see you posted a page number. Do you really read all this stuff? smile.gif

Posted by: Bofem Apr 1 2011, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Apr 1 2011, 11:55 AM) *
Rather than have everyone wade through hundreds of pages of council output, could you post a brief summary, please?

Edit - sorry, I see you posted a page number. Do you really read all this stuff? smile.gif


You're right Jeff, sorry it's dreary to understand what's going on locally and why. Maybe WBC have had to let go of their Website Development Manager in a bid to protect frontline services ohmy.gif

Posted by: blackdog Apr 1 2011, 01:01 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Apr 1 2011, 11:49 AM) *
A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.

Obviously there is far greater need to get people quickly into Parkway than to take them away. wink.gif

I guess there is not enough space to do it both ways - unless they did it up the centre of the road? As there are so few buses they would almost never meet in the middle. Might be a bit of a problem dropping off passengers blink.gif .

Posted by: Strafin Apr 1 2011, 06:00 PM

I always thought that would be a good idea IF they make it a part time bus lane.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 1 2011, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Apr 1 2011, 11:49 AM) *
A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.


You may have misinterpreted the information. As it is not costed (yet) I doubt it will be done next year, and almost certainly not fo0r any great lengths of the route. With the land required and engineering costing a fair amount there will be quite a run-up before work begins.
This is a proposal that was given a target for delivery (hence 2011/12 and 1012/13), and stands as an agreed item.

I wouldn't start driving down the middle of the road just yet.

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2011, 09:16 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Apr 1 2011, 11:49 AM) *
A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.



That is exciting.... are you bored then?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 1 2011, 10:39 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Apr 1 2011, 10:49 AM) *
A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.


So after the main bus route was diverted via Turnpike (number 1), we now get a bus lane even though the number of buses on the A4 has significantly reduced? I'd rather see this money spent on resurfacing works.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 1 2011, 11:09 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Apr 1 2011, 11:39 PM) *
So after the main bus route was diverted via Turnpike (number 1), we now get a bus lane even though the number of buses on the A4 has significantly reduced? I'd rather see this money spent on resurfacing works.

And there you have a core problem with (local) Government funding...... Once something goes in a programme it stays there, regardless of need and regardless or whether something better comes up (almost).
Having decided to put in a bus lane, changing the plan is all but impossible - especially if the opposition would latch on to it as a U-turn by the majority group. The locals who drove the idea, and the councillor who sponsored it would kick up an awful fuss....
Maybe the better reason for a bus lane is the income from enforcement......

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 11:26 PM

Another utter waste of money from the loonies.

Posted by: Bofem Apr 2 2011, 07:26 AM

Well folks, looks like this is going to cost the local economy significantly, yet no one knows a thing about it.

The idea came from consultants, which was then put in a consultation document, which was put on an obscure page of the website. The result: we get something we didn't ask for.

Had a quick look at the timetable, and can't find any more than 7 buses an hour westbound in rush hour. Unsurprising when it runs parallel to a railway line and motorway!

So we have the paradox of traffic congestion being the top local concern, and the solution being EVEN more congestion for buses used by fewer than 5% of the population.




Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 2 2011, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 1 2011, 11:09 PM) *
And there you have a core problem with (local) Government funding...... Once something goes in a programme it stays there, regardless of need and regardless or whether something better comes up (almost).
Having decided to put in a bus lane, changing the plan is all but impossible - especially if the opposition would latch on to it as a U-turn by the majority group. The locals who drove the idea, and the councillor who sponsored it would kick up an awful fuss....
Maybe the better reason for a bus lane is the income from enforcement......


Who was the member that sponsored it, and what support did they have?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 2 2011, 07:45 AM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Apr 1 2011, 10:49 AM) *
A couple of years ago, there was an idea to turn a lane of the A4 between Newbury and Thatcham into a bus lane. It's now happening next year http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1149&T=10

It appears from http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8433&p=0 that it's just westbound.


Is there a costing for this anywhere?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 2 2011, 08:38 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Apr 2 2011, 08:37 AM) *
Who was the member that sponsored it, and what support did they have?

Not a Scoobie. Just commenting on the 'normal' way these things happen.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 2 2011, 08:46 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Apr 2 2011, 08:45 AM) *
Is there a costing for this anywhere?


as per the document - not yet costed. Hence my comments re unlikely to be soon.

Politically, now it is in the plan and the plan must be delivered, 'something' could be done fairly cheaply - a bus lane to by-pass Turnpike roundabout, for instance. 150 yards can be a bus lane.

Truth is, the benefit is minimal. There is a long-standing wish to promote use of buses and to appear 'green'. I believe the idea first surfaced in the Lib-Dem years. If so, there is not likely to be much enthusiasm for cancelling the project.

Highways spend quite a lot on consultants for projects, That and cancelling some of the projects would be a way to reduce costs, but built environment projects are vote-winners. Savings would also only be in-year....

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 11:14 AM

It does make you wonder; I thought we didn't have that much money and that is why we have to cut back?

In Gaywood Drive Turnpike they want to build trees and wooden bollards on the green. Maybe it is a myth that we have to cut back, or the cut backs haven't reached WBC yet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 2 2011, 11:29 AM

Well I think we have seen in other threads how serious the council are about saving money. Especially when it impinges on their self imposed importance.

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Apr 2 2011, 12:29 PM) *
Well I think we have seen in other threads how serious the council are about saving money. Especially when it impinges on their self imposed importance.



Oh, yes.... which means we've got a contradiction here. tongue.gif

Just a matter of interest; the work that was supposed to be carried out in Gaywood Drive, Turnpike was not wanted my the majority of the residents... but that didn't stop them trying to throw money at their project.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 2 2011, 12:22 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 2 2011, 12:43 PM) *
Oh, yes.... which means we've got a contradiction here. tongue.gif

Just a matter of interest; the work that was supposed to be carried out in Gaywood Drive, Turnpike was not wanted my the majority of the residents... but that didn't stop them trying to throw money at their project.


That is the way of the world. Capital projects that look good get grant money and Councillor enthusiasm. Maintenance (revenue) is not sexy, so is at the bottom of the pile. I don't think money can be moved from maintenance to capital (and reverse) either, so money for a project cancelled cannot simply be used to resurface roads etc. I also believe it is so that it cannot be transferred to social care, especially as it is 'in year' allocation and social care is a rolling cost.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 2 2011, 02:11 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 2 2011, 12:22 PM) *
That is the way of the world. Capital projects that look good get grant money and Councillor enthusiasm. Maintenance (revenue) is not sexy, so is at the bottom of the pile. I don't think money can be moved from maintenance to capital (and reverse) either, so money for a project cancelled cannot simply be used to resurface roads etc. I also believe it is so that it cannot be transferred to social care, especially as it is 'in year' allocation and social care is a rolling cost.


If it had to be something new, why not infrastructure to improve Robin Hood Roundabout? Your other point is very sensible too, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Road condition is a big topic though too, lots of people raised it as an issue in Newbury Town Centre today at our stall.

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 2 2011, 01:22 PM) *
That is the way of the world. Capital projects that look good get grant money and Councillor enthusiasm. Maintenance (revenue) is not sexy, so is at the bottom of the pile. I don't think money can be moved from maintenance to capital (and reverse) either, so money for a project cancelled cannot simply be used to resurface roads etc. I also believe it is so that it cannot be transferred to social care, especially as it is 'in year' allocation and social care is a rolling cost.



I agree that is the way it is; but it shouldn't be.... and who decides? Isn't the money that is used for the people by the people? If we have to tighten our belts then money should be moved around so it benefits the right people/ projects and not wasted because there is an excess in one area.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 2 2011, 05:05 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 2 2011, 02:53 PM) *
I agree that is the way it is; but it shouldn't be.... and who decides? Isn't the money that is used for the people by the people? If we have to tighten our belts then money should be moved around so it benefits the right people/ projects and not wasted because there is an excess in one area.


Agreed.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 2 2011, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 2 2011, 03:53 PM) *
I agree that is the way it is; but it shouldn't be.... and who decides? Isn't the money that is used for the people by the people? If we have to tighten our belts then money should be moved around so it benefits the right people/ projects and not wasted because there is an excess in one area.


Local authorities spending money wisely....... wink.gif

You must obviously be living in the real world not the world of local authority politics? wink.gif

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Apr 2 2011, 06:11 PM) *
Local authorities spending money wisely....... wink.gif

You must obviously be living in the real world not the world of local authority politics? wink.gif


Granted; there are two worlds. The voting publics' world and the politicians world...

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 2 2011, 08:06 PM

I agree it is 'odd', but it is the way things are done in Central and local government. In many cases WBC feel stuck with it.

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 08:21 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 2 2011, 09:06 PM) *
I agree it is 'odd', but it is the way things are done in Central and local government. In many cases WBC feel stuck with it.



Just because that is the way we’ve always done something doesn’t mean we have to slavishly continue to follow like demented sheep. Rules/ laws are set, or supposed to be, to benefit mankind, not just there to just piss them off. If they don't benefit and they are out dated then they should be changed.


Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 2 2011, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 2 2011, 09:21 PM) *
Just because that is the way we’ve always done something doesn’t mean we have to slavishly continue to follow like demented sheep. Rules/ laws are set, or supposed to be, to benefit mankind, not just there to just piss them off. If they don't benefit and they are out dated then they should be changed.


Agreed, but it is 'safe' and a whole generation (and more) of administrators have come to expect to operate that way. A common system is also easier to audit and more difficult to fiddle. Not that MPs or Councillors would do such a thing.....


Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2011, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 2 2011, 09:25 PM) *
Agreed, but it is 'safe' and a whole generation (and more) of administrators have come to expect to operate that way. A common system is also easier to audit and more difficult to fiddle. Not that MPs or Councillors would do such a thing.....



Of course they wouldn't..... heavens above! (she said 'i know love).... our MPs and councillors are the most moral kind loving people one could image..... do you think we (ok, they) would vote in corrupt bastards? Never.... NEVER I SAY! We can trust our future in their hands.... and we know this because they told us..... so that is ok then!

So please... respect to our public servants. They are doing what they are doing for our benefit... not theirs.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 2 2011, 08:46 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Apr 2 2011, 09:25 PM) *
Agreed, but it is 'safe' and a whole generation (and more) of administrators have come to expect to operate that way. A common system is also easier to audit and more difficult to fiddle. Not that MPs or Councillors would do such a thing.....


MP's, Councillors do not fiddle; they only make mistakes.

It is the plebs on benefits that fiddle and must be made an example of. wink.gif

Right back to checking my non domiciliary tax allowances!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 2 2011, 10:06 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Apr 2 2011, 08:46 PM) *
Councillors do not fiddle;

Right back to checking my non domiciliary tax allowances!


You joke wink.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)