Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Newbury Gridlock

Posted by: JeffG Oct 4 2016, 07:03 PM

Seeing as this is an important issue which affects many of us I thought I would separate this out from the market thread where this started to be discussed.

This afternoon it took me the best part of an hour to get from the lower Andover Road area to Shaw. Tomorrow morning I have to pick someone up from a road off the A4 a short distance West of the Starting Gate.

I am currently thinking the quickest way would be to drive up the Andover Road to the Wash Water bypass interchange, then along the bypass to the A4 interchange. Any better suggestions?

It would be really useful if someone who travels South to North on a regular basis could keep us up to date with the current situation.

This is a total planning disaster: since all northbound traffic is funnelled into a single lane, it doesn't take a mathematical genius with an in-depth knowledge of Kirchoff's Law to work out that the Robin Hood lights should be adjusted to be green for twice as long northbound as all other routes.

Or maybe Mr/Ms Plod should be encouraged out of their ivory tower to actually do something to direct the traffic, as used to happen in days gone by.

Posted by: newres Oct 4 2016, 08:20 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 4 2016, 08:03 PM) *
I am currently thinking the quickest way would be to drive up the Andover Road to the Wash Water bypass interchange, then along the bypass to the A4 interchange. Any better suggestions?

That's often the quickest route anyway despite it being several miles further.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 4 2016, 08:46 PM

Come on, this is WBC traffic we are talking about! See many previous threads, they can't even design a simple road sign, or measure out parking spaces and you expect them to manage what is a major work on an arterial route! As for mathematics, sums aren't a WBC strength, can't even count votes.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 5 2016, 05:06 AM

I wonder if this is now going to be a permanent feature when the scheme is complete?
Another obstacle on the only north - south route through the town can't improve things can it?
I am finding it hard to appreciate what may be the gain achieved from the pain in this scheme.
That is in addition to the expense incurred and the environmental impact of more stopping, standing still and starting of vehicles.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 5 2016, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 5 2016, 06:06 AM) *
I wonder if this is now going to be a permanent feature when the scheme is complete?
Another obstacle on the only north - south route through the town can't improve things can it?
I am finding it hard to appreciate what may be the gain achieved from the pain in this scheme.
That is in addition to the expense incurred and the environmental impact of more stopping, standing still and starting of vehicles.

It is one common theme with some schemes: trying to understand the benefits. The line would be to regenerate an unused area of the town. Although I have no proof it wouldn't surprise me if there was a lot of nodding and winking this through; meanwhile, Vickie Park is being eroded.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 5 2016, 06:50 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 5 2016, 07:24 AM) *
It is one common theme with some schemes: trying to understand the benefits. The line would be to regenerate an unused area of the town. Although I have no proof it wouldn't surprise me if there was a lot of nodding and winking this through; meanwhile, Vickie Park is being eroded.


To understand the benefits, first you need to decide whose shoes you are wearing!

Posted by: Claude Oct 5 2016, 10:47 AM

Jeff - depending on what time you travelled this morning, through town could have been an option.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 5 2016, 01:07 PM

Yep, it's all open again. I did go round the bypass as it happens (only 15 mins altogether door to door) at around 10.00 as I couldn't afford to risk it, but going back we went via the ring road. There was hardly any traffic so I'm guessing everyone else was avoiding it too smile.gif

Posted by: x2lls Oct 7 2016, 10:19 PM

Swampy was right.

Posted by: motormad Oct 8 2016, 03:14 PM

Traffic is a joke in newbury lately.

Major road works on the only route north south as well as boundry road still being shut. Gg council

Posted by: user23 Oct 9 2016, 10:00 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Oct 8 2016, 04:14 PM) *
Traffic is a joke in newbury lately.

Major road works on the only route north south as well as boundry road still being shut. Gg council
You know there's another North / South route, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_bypass

Posted by: JeffG Oct 9 2016, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 11:00 AM) *
You know there's another North / South route, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_bypass

Hardly relevant if you actually live in Newbury. I think the other day was possibly the second time I have used the bypass since it opened, as I had to get somewhere on time and couldn't risk being stuck in traffic.

I think the first time was soon after it opened just to see what it was like.

Posted by: user23 Oct 9 2016, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 9 2016, 02:16 PM) *
Hardly relevant if you actually live in Newbury. I think the other day was possibly the second time I have used the bypass since it opened, as I had to get somewhere on time and couldn't risk being stuck in traffic.

I think the first time was soon after it opened just to see what it was like.
You've negated your own argument there by saying it's not relevant to you, but you used it the other day as you thought it was a more reliable route.

I live in Newbury and I also sometimes use the by-pass if I need to get to the other side of town.

Posted by: newres Oct 9 2016, 02:36 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 02:24 PM) *
You've negated your own argument there by saying it's not relevant to you, but you used it the other day as you thought it was a more reliable route.

I live in Newbury and I also sometimes use the by-pass if I need to get to the other side of town.

You've negated yours. It's supposed to be a by-pass.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2016, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2016, 03:36 PM) *
You've negated yours. It's supposed to be a by-pass.


You are quite right newres.

However, some have clearly already brought into the mindset they want us to have...it won't be long before we see the new homes sprout either side of this 'alternative' road!

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 9 2016, 03:30 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 9 2016, 02:24 PM) *
You've negated your own argument there by saying it's not relevant to you, but you used it the other day as you thought it was a more reliable route.

I live in Newbury and I also sometimes use the by-pass if I need to get to the other side of town.


Nothing like doing a 4 mile detour when you only want to do a few hundred yards journey is there? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: blackdog Oct 9 2016, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2016, 03:36 PM) *
You've negated yours. It's supposed to be a by-pass.

Not sure how his point is negated as he is suggesting using the A34 to bypass the town centre and its traffic problems.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 9 2016, 03:52 PM

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

Exactly. That's why it's not relevant to me. One-time use through force majeure* doesn't make it any more relevant. (In fact, the ring road had reopened to two-lane traffic that morning, but I wasn't to know that - if I had, I would of course not have used the bypass then, either.)

* "an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.)" - or in this case incompetent planning by the local council. wink.gif

Posted by: newres Oct 9 2016, 04:40 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 9 2016, 04:52 PM) *
Not sure how his point is negated as he is suggesting using the A34 to bypass the town centre and its traffic problems.

I thought the A339 was to bypass the town centre. In truth though, because at peak times the congestion on the inadequate access roads to the A339 is so heavy, it is often better to use the by-pass. It has to be a 5 mile diversion at least.

Posted by: user23 Oct 9 2016, 07:10 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2016, 03:36 PM) *
You've negated yours. It's supposed to be a by-pass.
Yes, and we've both used it to by-pass the middle of Newbury recently. I'm not sure how this negates my point.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2016, 08:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 9 2016, 08:13 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!

Posted by: user23 Oct 9 2016, 08:43 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.

Posted by: newres Oct 9 2016, 08:45 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2016, 08:47 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2016, 08:48 PM

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!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 10 2016, 08:04 AM

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?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 10 2016, 08:51 AM

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?

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 10 2016, 09:14 AM

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

Posted by: blackdog Oct 10 2016, 03:31 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 Oct 10 2016, 07:54 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2016, 06:38 AM

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!

Posted by: user23 Oct 11 2016, 06:46 PM

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?

Posted by: newres Oct 11 2016, 08:37 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2016, 08:49 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 Oct 11 2016, 09:16 PM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 11 2016, 09:38 PM

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?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 12 2016, 05:54 AM

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.

Posted by: newres Oct 12 2016, 06:05 AM

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.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 12 2016, 09:38 AM

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.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 13 2016, 08:18 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 12 2016, 10:38 AM) *
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.



The idea is that you slow down to negotiate the chicanes, giving way when required, not treat them as an exercise in car control at speed.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 13 2016, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 13 2016, 09:18 AM) *
The idea is that you slow down to negotiate the chicanes, giving way when required, not treat them as an exercise in car control at speed.

I wasn't talking about me - I was talking about the other bloke!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2016, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 13 2016, 09:18 AM) *
The idea is that you slow down to negotiate the chicanes, giving way when required, not treat them as an exercise in car control at speed.

Absolutely.... The chicanes are pretty effective at controlling speeds when there's a reasonable amount of opposing flow, so if there was to be a 'new junction' and more traffic used that route as a result it would probably be safer than when there is very little coming the other way... because then some drivers just treat them as if they were having a race experience at Silverstone....

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