Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ We need a ring road
Posted by: Ziggy Oct 27 2010, 07:33 AM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14945
Now I have no particular qualifications or expertise in town planning, but is this not rather shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Ever since I have lived in the area, new housing and retail developments have been given the go-ahead with seemingly no strategic thinking whatsoever about roads or other infrastructure.
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 27 2010, 07:45 AM
Now I have no particular qualifications or expertise in town planning, but is this not rather shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Ever since I have lived in the area, new housing and retail developments have been given the go-ahead with seemingly no strategic thinking whatsoever about roads or other infrastructure.
Wouldn't it be advisable for the Councils to solve the traffic problems in Newbury before building 2k5 new houses in and around the town or is that being too simplistic?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 07:53 AM
I agree with both of you, but it ain't going to happen.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 08:05 AM
Suggestions as to possible routes please. IMHO it would be as waste of time.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 08:05 AM
The councillor is suggesting that we don't want through traffic. Drivers will always opt for the shortest route, regardless of the traffic flow so a ring road would be under used.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 09:21 AM
If we had a ring road we could then have a 'proper' pedestrianise shopping centre.
It is what Reading, Swindon and Basingstoke did and do. Not that I am a great admirer of them.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 09:27 AM
It is what Reading, Swindon and Basingstoke did and do. Not that I am a great admirer of them.
None of the above really have a 'proper' ring road - they have disjointed bits of dual carriageway, usually which end in a bottle neck. Swindon has only just had two of their bottle necks removed ( on the A419/7 ) but all that has done is make the situation at Birdlip worse.
Most of the traffic in Newbury is folk either driving into town to go to work, or mums driving their kids to school.
You only have to look at the situation in the Wharf & over the canal bridge every day to realise that drivers are their own worse enemy. They deserve to sit in traffic
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 27 2010, 09:53 AM
I think the problem is that Newbury was never ever designed for a large population and the layout of the existing housing and road structure will always restrict vehicle traffic. The population is just about being adaquately serviced. If the powers that be decide that they want Newbury to have a larger population then infrastructure must be a priority otherwise it will strangle itself.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 11:27 AM
Why then is Sunday lunch time often so bad on the A339?
That is a bit unfair; no-body looks for a traffic jam and one can develop in a matter of minutes in Newbury.
One of the problems is a lack of 'north circular' on the west said of town. If we had more canal crossings, that might improve things.
I still maintain that the pedestrianisation project is partly let down by an inappropriate road system in the town.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 11:31 AM
That is a bit unfair; no-body looks for a traffic jam and one can develop in a matter of minutes in Newbury.
One of the problems is a lack of 'north circular' on the west said of town. If we had more canal crossings, that might improve things.
Unfair? I bet it is the same drivers each day. The A339 is a longer, but faster alternative, but people still drive down park way.
A339 on Sundays? Which bit?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 12:06 PM
Although it is besides the point; how do you know?
Down the link and on to the Police Station, etc...
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 12:14 PM
Down the link and on to the Police Station, etc...
Well Watson, using parkway to get across town isn't a route a person who does not know the town would take. Therefore one must assume those waiting on the one-way bridge etc know the town well, which means they must use the route often to be familiar with it.
The traffic on the A339 is hardly bad enough to warrant building a by pass - which I am sure would only be used by 'out of towners' I wonder, how many local people wanting to get from Wash Common to Shaw would ever think of using the A34?
Posted by: James_Trinder Oct 27 2010, 12:20 PM
My friend lives in Woolton Hill and when he used to work at West Berkshire Hospital he did exactly that.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 12:25 PM
I'd expect him to & most other to do the same. Woolton Hill is not in Newbury. I'm on about people driving out of the town - ie say from near Park House School & then on to the A34 when going to Waitrose.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Oct 27 2010, 01:14 PM
Well, that's what we do.
Mind you, you do sometimes take your life in your hands joining the A34 - the slip roads are far too short for safety.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Oct 27 2010, 01:14 PM
Well, that's what we do.
Mind you, you do sometimes take your life in your hands joining the A34 - the slip roads are far too short for safety.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 01:32 PM
OK, so it is an assumption then.
I'm not sure a by-pass was what was proposed. My view is about making navigating around town better so as to improve exit/access and so that we may have a 'proper' pedestrian shopping centre.
It is all rather pointless anyway, as it ain't going to happen any time soon. If anything, perhaps Thatcham deserve a bridge for the railway crossing more than anything.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure a by-pass was what was proposed. My view is about making navigating around town better so as to improve exit/access and so that we may have a 'proper' pedestrian shopping centre.
It is all rather pointless anyway, as it ain't going to happen any time soon. If anything, perhaps Thatcham deserve a bridge for the railway crossing more than anything.
Unless a survey is conducted the nature of the journey origination of anyone at the wharf is assumption....
A ring road in town - pushed through existing development?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 01:38 PM
Huh?
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 01:42 PM
If it isn't a green field by-pass, ( or on the W side of town utilising the A34 ), ie a distance from the town centre it will have to be built over existing development won't it. ( I agree that it is all hypothetical as it will never be considered ).
Not like the A339 Newbury - Basingstoke dual carrigeway plan that was considered at great cost.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 27 2010, 01:55 PM
Exactly; which is why I sure this is all that we will hear of it. That doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be a good idea if we were able to though.
Sorry, my thickness strikes again and I don't know what you mean!
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2010, 01:59 PM
Sorry, my thickness strikes again and I don't know what you mean!
About 20 years ago a plan was drawn up, with scale maps, elevations plans, a fully proposed route, etc etc to make the A339 into dual carriageway, from Basingstoke to Newbury.
The DoT produced a thick A4 sized consultation document which was available to all & sundry. I don't know if it was to do with the use of Greenham as a base for Cruise, but the plan must have cost a fair few £ to design & produce.
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 27 2010, 01:59 PM
The only piece of new road that is going to be built is the bit between Scats and Hambridge road thus allowing even more traffic from the new Racecourse developement to access the Police Station Roundabout. Happy days.
Posted by: Ben01635 Oct 27 2010, 03:38 PM
Didn't we have a ring road built around Newbury about 10 years ago..... I think it was called the Newbury Bypass!!!!
While no one can dispute that it helped alleviate the traffic at the time, as pointed out by protesters at the time; in 10 years it will be just as bad again! and here we are! - Well in fairness it's not as bad; 12 years ago I was travelling from Warwickshire to Burghclere at weekends and it used to take me 45 minutes to get to the Robin Hood roundabout and a further 45 minutes to get to Burghclere, so it's no where near as bad, but certainly traffic flow through Newbury is a MAJOR problem.
With the bypass built I cannot think of where you would build a ring road that would be easily accessible from both sides of the town without drivers having to go out of their way to get to it, otherwise no one will use it.
The problem I feel stems from the two roundabouts at the Police station and Burger King, if these could somehow be adjusted to either have a slip road off and on or a fly over so that through traffic could continue without stopping then almost all the traffic issues would be resolved. How you would find the space for this though I don't know!
Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 27 2010, 03:59 PM
You add more houses, you increase the traffic. Where would you build such a ring road without going through greenbelts?
A ring road may just have the shoppers going to other locations, thus upsetting those shops already in town.
The traffic is much better than it was before the bypass.
Posted by: GMR Oct 27 2010, 04:29 PM
Now I have no particular qualifications or expertise in town planning.
Don't let that worry you, they are all experts on here.... so anything anybody wants to know then some jack in the box will pop up and guide you to the promised land.
Posted by: HJD Oct 27 2010, 04:47 PM
Well it's certainly a bit late if you try to leave a comment on the Consultation Questionnaire because you get the following answer :-
This survey is now closed. 
Posted by: blackdog Oct 27 2010, 05:34 PM
The bypass took the A34 through traffic out of town - and is still providing a huge improvement. The choice of the western route meant that lots of traffic to and from the A34 and Thatcham or from the Chieveley junction to and from Basingstoke still comes through town.
Complete the ring with an eastern road and a lot more traffic would be taken out of town - especially if there was an exit for the racecourse.
Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2010, 06:44 PM
It's a major pain, especially now that the Kennet Heath development is fully occupied and so even more traffic crawls over that bottleneck. But a bridge is another one of those pie-in-the-sky projects which will never get off the ground.... The 'level crossing bridge' would have to be massive as it wouldn't just be the railway it would need to cross but also the canal and the river. Quite a span for the approach ramps.. would need several million to see that sort of a project through and those figures will never be found for such a relatively minor road.
Posted by: On the edge Oct 27 2010, 07:08 PM
The cost of a bridge is simply an excuse - trotted out by those living 'the other side' who feel they should be immune from consequences of modern world. The cost is really quite cheap - mainly earth works, there are many other examples particularly on the old Southern lines. Appreciate that we in this part of Berkshire doesn't do bridges very well - i.e. refurbishing the bridge in Parkway and the joke that is Blackboys Bridge west of the Station
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 08:56 AM
I've already said on another forum that with these 10,500 residential units coming online, our focus now needs to be on infrastructure. I don't think a ring road is a viable option, but I do believe the A339 corridor needs improving. The Robin Hood Roundabout needs replaced with something a lot more simpler and effective, my own personal view would be to have the A339 go over the A4. To enable this, we would have to move the fire station and I'm sure there would be a need for other works to make it possible.
I notice that in this consultation "offering more choice" regarding transport options is mentioned repeatedly. If this was genuinely the case, why are we subsidising the bus company by around £2m a year and allowing them to cut services, such as the 11 service which provides late evening services and is the only service to serve the northern streets of Thatcham? What we need is a full review of bus services and who provides them. Does all of the money given to Reading Buses go on services within West Berkshire?
As for rail, I believe that we should be pushing for an hourly fast train for Newbury to London and the South West, with an hourly Bedwyn - Paddington semi fast and an hour stopping service between Newbury and Reading. Station security is a very important issue that needs addressing right now, and I would suggest to network rail that if they install CCTV cameras, surely they could be monitored as part of the West Berks CCTV network? Information is always an issue at are stations, I know that Thatcham and Newbury often have the info screen out of use, and what I can remember Kintbury doesn't have a screen?
Another issue is that of the elderly who live in rural areas not served by public transportation. With the travel tokens gone for these people, they are often left in limbo. One good example is a lady who lives out near Basildon. There is one bus a week from her village for her to go and get shopping etc. If she ever needed to go to the doctors to get something seen too, she can't afford a taxi and would have to wait upto a week to get her issue seen too. With more and more bus services getting withdrawn, we need a solution to ensure that these people are allowed to remain in their homes.
Finally for now, taxi licensing. West Berks have issued arround 300 licences I'm told and the fees get hiked every year. It is an easy way to make money, I accept that. But what I don't think is acceptable is when we have people coming here from Birmingham and Slough to work as a cab driver. Let's enforce a cap on the number of cabs within West Berks, and work with the drivers to ensure that they get a fair deal. In my hometown, I think they have 120 cabs. By having a cab, owners ensure that there is always a driver in each cab and the level of service for residents is more effective. By having no viable plan regarding cabs besides hiking the fees each year and accepting all comers, we end up with a poor level of service for taxi users.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 09:01 AM
What would you imagine the cost of a bridge to be? I think that it would be good to have a bridge, but the main question regarding all infrastructure projects here in West Berks is where is the money coming from? We didn't demand money from developers for the significant infrastructure that we require, and now we have to provide these roads, bridges and buildings after the horse has already bolted as someone else put it. This is another reason why I believe we need a planning review. Why have we allowed all of this development without improving our infrastructure as part of it???
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 28 2010, 09:07 AM
Isn't there £18m of contractors S106 money unspent in the Council coffers that could be used to improve the infrastructure?
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2010, 09:21 AM
While no one can dispute that it helped alleviate the traffic at the time, as pointed out by protesters at the time; in 10 years it will be just as bad again! and here we are! - Well in fairness it's not as bad; 12 years ago I was travelling from Warwickshire to Burghclere at weekends and it used to take me 45 minutes to get to the Robin Hood roundabout and a further 45 minutes to get to Burghclere, so it's no where near as bad, but certainly traffic flow through Newbury is a MAJOR problem.
With the bypass built I cannot think of where you would build a ring road that would be easily accessible from both sides of the town without drivers having to go out of their way to get to it, otherwise no one will use it.
The problem I feel stems from the two roundabouts at the Police station and Burger King, if these could somehow be adjusted to either have a slip road off and on or a fly over so that through traffic could continue without stopping then almost all the traffic issues would be resolved. How you would find the space for this though I don't know!
Yep, we were told it would solve all Newbury's traffic problems
!I hate to say told you so - but told you so!
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2010, 09:23 AM
Yep, it was built on the WRONG (but cheapest financially) route.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 09:24 AM
I think we need a whole new thread on finances ;-)
That £18m wouldn't pay for much.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 28 2010, 09:37 AM
It may have been the cheapest route financially, but it was also less expensive in many other ways.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2010, 10:02 AM
But DIDN'T solve Newbury's traffic problems!
(I will leave it there - no point in a belated by-pass debate!)
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 28 2010, 10:15 AM
(I will leave it there - no point in a belated by-pass debate!)
It never could. The problem is people driving into Newbury.
The A34 is part of TERN - the bypass would have been built regardless of what Rendell claims.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2010, 11:35 AM
AND people and lorries getting from the A339 Basingstoke Road to the A34 / M4.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 28 2010, 11:37 AM
Well if they won't follow the road signs...
Wbhilst the Eastern route would have been better on paper the logistics of actually building it pervented such as scheme ever seriously being considered.
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2010, 12:03 PM
That's right - they don't - they take the shortest route.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 28 2010, 12:05 PM
So a ring road would be a waste of time then.....
Posted by: Jayjay Oct 28 2010, 12:56 PM
The number 11 bus only provides late night services Friday and Saturday, the rest of the week it finishes at 6.30 from the bus station and 6.10 from Thatcham. So much for Ian Duncan Smith's catch a bus to find work. The excuse for stopping it is it is not profitable. It is well used, but a big proportion of passengers are children (half fare) and older people with bus passes.
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 28 2010, 01:01 PM
They ignore the road signs and follow the sat-nav regardless.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 03:20 PM
I thought the purpose of subsidising bus routes and bus companies was that they would then provide services for the elderly and students etc.
Posted by: HJD Oct 28 2010, 03:45 PM
Impose a weight restriction, that would solve the lorry problem instantly.
Posted by: Jayjay Oct 28 2010, 04:50 PM
You would have thought so wouldn't you. Shaw Road area has a high proportion of elderly people owing to the purpose build housing there. These people will now have to drive to get to the hospital, into town or supermarkets. The children, who currently catch the bus to school will now walk.
Where is the logic of proposing a park and ride scheme when we cannot maintain the service we have at the moment. Strangely, buses servicing Reading have increased their routes and regularity and fares have decreased since they took over Newbury buses.
Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2010, 06:46 PM
Several million. However, Newbury is no longer a little market town - a fact un noticed by most of our politricians locally over the past twenty odd years. They seem to think protecting West Berkshire is keeping a few sleepy village pubs going, so the wolly jumper set can down their half pints and watch the sunset over the downs. Look around - this is now a dormitory suburb - Swindon without the facilities. Where does the money come from? Our community charges that's where. These should be spent matching infrastructure to population - rather than pished away in Scotland (Central Govt. Support Grants) or repairing hardly used rural tracks - so hay waggons don't get punctures. Lets face facts; old Newbury is dead and nothing is going to revive it. Lets make it better for everyone - particularly those who pay the bills.
Posted by: HeatherW Oct 28 2010, 07:22 PM
I share peoples concerns. Newbury is ever-growing and we need to sort out our road system to accommodate our growth.
Posted by: blackdog Oct 28 2010, 09:53 PM
Might upset the many Newbury businesses that rely on HGVs to keep going.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 28 2010, 10:30 PM
Another way to look at it: would it be true to say that some of the road infrastructure issues we have now, is because of inaction in the past; when it could have been easier and cheaper? If so, should we not be implementing improvements now so that we can cope with a growth in the size of town now?
Posted by: Biker1 Oct 29 2010, 08:53 AM
So we just go on and on building more and more roads?
There must be a better solution in the wider picture?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 29 2010, 08:56 AM
If we will eventually need relief roads, then it would be cheaper and easier to do it now than later.
Posted by: Bofem Oct 29 2010, 11:27 AM
For some reason, the NWN didn't get around to reporting the 'juicy bit' in WBC's new transport plan, which is to re-route all HGVs coming up from Basingstoke onto the Newtown Straight and then from Tothill up the A34.
This is in response to the dangerous pollution levels by Burger King.
Fingers crossed the Newtown mob don't kick off again.
See WBC website consultation finder Local Transport Plan Oct 2010
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 29 2010, 11:34 AM
This is in response to the dangerous pollution levels by Burger King.
Fingers crossed the Newtown mob don't kick off again.
See WBC website consultation finder Local Transport Plan Oct 2010
This sounds like a sensible plan in that the Newtown straight, if that is the link road between the Swan roundsbout and Tothill A34 access roundabout, is a wide and suitable road and it will keep the HGVs out of the town.
I am not sure how they would enforce this though and what about those vehicles that are delivery to town stores?
Posted by: HJD Oct 29 2010, 01:15 PM
There most probably would be a way round it to ensure local deliveries were allowed. I'm suprised that a member of W.B.C. Highways department has'nt come up with a sensible solution yet.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 02:49 PM
The lack of infrastructure is down to years and years of inaction. Where other local authorities have planned to grow and have planned infrastructure to accomdate this growth, West Berks have simply buried their heads for years hoping the "growth" issue would go away. When the spatial plan was released by the last Government, the council had to plan for 10,500 new homes. But because there is very little money and the council have not forced the developers to pay for key infrastructure projects, we now face a massive new retail facility and 10,500 houses with very little improvements to infrastructure. I'm not against growth, I'm just calling for responsibility to be taken to ensure that this mess is never allowed to repeat itself. This is another reason why we need a full review of planning matters since power was delegated to the officers.
As for bus services, we pay around £2m a year on Reading buses (depending on what financial reports you read, as they are conflicting). What a Labour administration would do here is draw up a network that if fit for purpose then put it out to tender. By promising to do this, we hope to shame the other parties into doing the same thing should they win. We are paying more and more to Reading buses and getting less and less. Let's have a proper tender for once (I know that's not done for anything by West Berks, but there is a first time for everything!!!).
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 03:00 PM
As for bus services, we pay around £2m a year on Reading buses (depending on what financial reports you read, as they are conflicting). What a Labour administration would do here is draw up a network that if fit for purpose then put it out to tender. By promising to do this, we hope to shame the other parties into doing the same thing should they win. We are paying more and more to Reading buses and getting less and less. Let's have a proper tender for once (I know that's not done for anything by West Berks, but there is a first time for everything!!!).
who is paying for a bus service no-one uses? how much subsidy?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 03:02 PM
WBC pay Reading busses around £2m a year. The reason nobody uses it is because it's not fit for service.
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 29 2010, 03:04 PM
Another sweeping and inaccuarate statement Mr Garvie. WBC do tender for services. You are wrong!!
You are not doing yourself any favours on this forum. It is difficult to take you seriously when you make clearly provocative and inaccuarate comments.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 03:06 PM
why?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 03:13 PM
You are not doing yourself any favours on this forum. It is difficult to take you seriously when you make clearly provocative and inaccuarate comments.
If West Berks refuse to supply information about these kind of issues, what else are we to think? Do West Berks tender for building work?
Posted by: Bloggo Oct 29 2010, 03:18 PM
You have just stated that WBC don't tender for anything. That's what you said.
Now you are not sure because you have been challenged.
You know, I can't tell if what you say is true or false as you seem to make statements that suit your argument without any supporting evidence.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 03:20 PM
Money is paid in subsidy. You just have to look at the service guide to see why it isn't fit for service. Service 11 is being withdrawn because it doesn't attract enough full fare customers according to one person, I thought the purpose of subsidising bus routes was to provide a service to those who can't / don't drive? A bus costs around £10k a year to lease - 30 busses and the staff to run them would cost less than the money we pay in subsidy at present IMO.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 03:25 PM
Now you are not sure because you have been challenged.
You know, I can't tell if what you say is true or false as you seem to make statements that suit your argument without any supporting evidence.
Don't West Berks have a seat on the board of Reading busses harking back to the old BCC days??? They only tender for additional services. FACT. Building services, do they tender??? You have said I'm lying, where is the evidence to show they tender for these construction projects??? The CCTV transfer to Windsor - they did a deal with Windsor which was blocked because it hadn't been put out to tender. When it did go to tender, who won??? Coincidence???
Back on topic, there needs to be a proper review of what we get for our money RE: Bus services. There is no information online, apart from loose total sums paid. Why can't we see how much service 1 costs us as a local authority for instance?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 29 2010, 03:31 PM
Back on topic, there needs to be a proper review of what we get for our money RE: Bus services. There is no information online, apart from loose total sums paid. Why can't we see how much service 1 costs us as a local authority for instance?
.....Because I don't Want West Berks to employee another 10 bean counters costing about £400K a year to provide you with statistics that you can use to politic over....
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 03:47 PM
As long as you are happy then
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 05:09 PM
A bus service is provided to make money for the company that operates it.
£2million will be for the whole of West Berks. How many routes is that? How many buses, drivers, maintenance staff ? If there is a surplus here ( ie £2million is too much ) & cash is being wasted, why doesn't Labour offer to bring in bus operation into council control? Merely pointing the finger & saying that Labour would 'go to tender' isn't really going to improve the situation is it?
In my experience, businesses normally continue to run something if they can make money doing it. If RB want to cancel a route, it stands to reason that they want to cancel it because they are not making money, even with a subsidy. Just because you subsidise something does not mean it will run regardless.
Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2010, 05:21 PM
http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=783
Perhaps if you did more research, you wouldn't make such sweeping and incorrect generalisations?
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/nis/pages/default.aspx
Again, do the research before you start announcing new Labour policies to spend taxpayers' money.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 05:50 PM
Bus services that are subsidised are paid money to keep running at a loss because it connects communities to public services. User23, show me a direct link to the exact amount we give Reading busses and how that figure is broken down. They obviously don't have it because I've been told that I can't have that level of detail. It's somewhere between £2m and £2.5m from what I can see, but why do different financial documents not add up to the same figure?
As I said before, Labour would propose a revised network of services and put it out to all companies to bid for. The level of service I believe we require would require 26 busses, so I accounted for four additional busses as cover. Based on a £25k salary for drivers and engineers, if Stagecoach ran that level of service elsewhere the subsidy level would be around £1.5m from a local authority. *Go on any bus lease site and the figures for leasing 30 busses would be around £300k a year.
The point is here, that to date West Berks refuse to provide any detailed financial information with regards to bus services or anything else, as to why we apparently have four cost centres for policy and scrutiny teams to the tune of around £1m and such like. Why don't you post direct links User23 (if they exist). I believe if the level of detail was available, the council would have supplied it weeks ago.
Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2010, 05:57 PM
Another thread seems to have been turned into an off topic Labour Party campaign broadcast.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 06:01 PM
Apparently you only need 26 busses. That will be about 40 drivers then, on about 10-12 routes.
Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2010, 06:06 PM
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 06:14 PM
well, you work backwards. You decide what great saving you'd like to show your party could achieve if you were in power & go from there.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 06:17 PM
At present, there are less than 26 busses in operation per day. From looking at the level of service you could provide for £2m a year, I looked into how busses it would get you and also took into accound operational cost such as staff and fuel. For £2m we should have an all singing, all dancing network of routes with half hourly services and the like, early morning and late night services and the like. This is why I believe we need to look seriously at what we are getting for our money at present.
Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2010, 06:18 PM
No doubt a team of experts has been employed to work this figure out, and it hasn't just been scribbled out on the pack of a fag packet.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 06:20 PM
26 busses total? are you sure?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 06:23 PM
No you don't. You identify what level of service you require before dishing out the contracts. Once you establish what level of service you require, you go out and speak to as many operators as possible to get the best deal for the taxpayer. That's what anyone with a brain would do.
It's like the infrastructure, the argument from the Tories and the Libs is that we didn't need to improve our infrastructure such as roads, bridges and school capacity. Even now they deny we need it despite reports on the West Berks website saying the opposite. People need to wake up and realise that roads and schools won't build themselves. And before you start saying about the new primary school we are getting, is one little primary school going to address capacity accross the whole district???
As I've said elsewhere, we now need to focus on infrastructure and keeping people in West Berkshire. Without new employment generating floorspace, without ne retail capacity and without holding developers to affordable housing quotas, we are going to be in one heck of a bad situation, even worse than we are now.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2010, 06:29 PM
It's like the infrastructure, the argument from the Tories and the Libs is that we didn't need to improve our infrastructure such as roads, bridges and school capacity. Even now they deny we need it despite reports on the West Berks website saying the opposite. People need to wake up and realise that roads and schools won't build themselves. And before you start saying about the new primary school we are getting, is one little primary school going to address capacity accross the whole district???
As I've said elsewhere, we now need to focus on infrastructure and keeping people in West Berkshire. Without new employment generating floorspace, without ne retail capacity and without holding developers to affordable housing quotas, we are going to be in one heck of a bad situation, even worse than we are now.
And of course WBC don't bother with any of this do they.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 06:41 PM
No doubt a team of experts has been employed to work this figure out, and it hasn't just been scribbled out on the pack of a fag packet.
Get one of the pocket timetables and work it out yourself or ring reading busses. Remember we are talking about subsidised routes.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 06:43 PM
Well, all through the LTP they talk about more choice and providing better options but in real terms, they are axing routes.
*But we still pay around £2m a year!!!
Posted by: On the edge Oct 29 2010, 07:28 PM
Newbury does seem to be taken for a ride by 'Reading Buses' in more ways than one. Not surprising really and the answer is in the title. Very few public transport systems world wide make a profit. However, most civilised countries recognise the importance. There are also better finance models than private company or local council. What's wrong with a non profit making trust, or a co-operative, or dare I suggest a public board? We just need some initiative and some imagination - at least Reading solved the problem...!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 07:32 PM
Check out some of the Urban Bus Challenge schemes, that is the sort of standard that we should be aiming for. But yes on the edge, you're on the button. West Berkshire delegates the majority of all decisions to officers, and the authority is now a target driven business. That's why the LDF is in danger of going belly up. Not because people don't want an LDF, the officers are insisting on railroading their own ideas through.
Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2010, 08:00 PM
Posted by: Jayjay Oct 29 2010, 09:29 PM
£2million will be for the whole of West Berks. How many routes is that? How many buses, drivers, maintenance staff ? If there is a surplus here ( ie £2million is too much ) & cash is being wasted, why doesn't Labour offer to bring in bus operation into council control? Merely pointing the finger & saying that Labour would 'go to tender' isn't really going to improve the situation is it?
In my experience, businesses normally continue to run something if they can make money doing it. If RB want to cancel a route, it stands to reason that they want to cancel it because they are not making money, even with a subsidy. Just because you subsidise something does not mean it will run regardless.
So, on the same reasoning, I assume you advocate postal deliveries only on profitable rounds?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 29 2010, 10:19 PM
That would, or should be established in when an SLA is drawn.
Posted by: dannyboy Oct 31 2010, 11:10 AM
The Royal Mail is still a state run enterprise. So 'profitability' should not enter into the equation. If it was just another courier/mail company, then yes, I would expect to see changes, including the removal of under used services.
Roland Hill proved 170 years ago that it cost no less to deliver a letter locally than nationally.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 11:55 AM
We seem to have gone off the beaten track; what's the argument again?
Posted by: user23 Oct 31 2010, 12:26 PM
We haven't resolved this question but we do seem to have learned that Labour could do everything much better and cheaper than anyone else.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 02:17 PM
...and with more honesty and with greater altruistic intentions; presumably.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 04:49 PM
We haven't resolved this question but we do seem to have learned that Labour could do everything much better and cheaper than anyone else.
No, I've suggested how it could be done more effectively and how inept the current administration is.
Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2010, 05:28 PM
We haven't resolved this question but we do seem to have learned that Labour could do everything much better and cheaper than anyone else.
I'd hazard we've learned that some aspiring local politician has a few good ideas. Rather more perhaps than the existing crop seem to have had in the past 12 years. I'm sure the Labour party itself won't have any detailed view about dear old Newbury. Any more than Conservative Party HO or the LibDem Assembly (or whatever) has.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 31 2010, 07:02 PM
Anywho, the ring road. I'm disturbed this is how major transport infrastructure is decided: Cllr Howard Bairstow hears a presentation to the Town Council and suddenly he's an expert in sustainable urban travel? What we need is an integrated strategic sustainable plan for settlement, industry, employment, and travel, and that takes political vision, and enough insight to know that the details need leaving to professionals. What we actually have is piecemeal development, and throwing a ringroad round it will just guild the t*rd.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 07:15 PM
It's funny you say that Simon, because that is what the LDF is supposed to be.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)