Thank you Network rail and Thatcham level crossing Options

[Washwaterman]

Well another record 1 hour 5 minutes from The SSE roundabout to the level crossing Failure of the barriers this time. cannot remember the last time a bridge broke down.

[spartacus]

and likewise there may well be a need to demolish some industrial buildings, but in the context of an important scheme that's neither here nor there

…ahh yes, "The Greater Good" argument....

I assume you don't work at one of these businesses that would be demolished then...

[Simon Kirby]

…ahh yes, "The Greater Good" argument....

I assume you don't work at one of these businesses that would be demolished then...

I've worked at a number of firms who, for one reason or another, have had to up-sticks, that's five relocations in my 30-odd year working life. It's disruptive for sure, but it often also creates an opportunity to modernise and organise so as long as the companies involved are compensated for theirloss I don't see any problem at all. Compulsory relocation of residential property is a different matter because of the entirely reasonable emotional connection to home and hearth, but that's not an issue with industrial.

So yes, "Hot-Fuzz" connotations acknowledged, but I do believe in the greater good and I think the proposal is a serious contribution to an important local issue and it deserves serious consideration.

[spartacus]

Anything is possible.

But is it realistically achievable. We don't live in ancient Egypt and we don't have the financial resources to support this.

Feasibility study done in 2004 (letter attached) indicated an approximate £20m cost at that time. With the passage of time and other costs at this new location (compensation for relocated businesses, repositioning of pylons and HV cables, new roundabouts, new entrances, land acquisition etc) the costs would be significantly more (double? treble?)

Moving the crossing east solves the ramp gradient problem because the ramp isn't then constrained to meet the level of the existing road on the north at the mini roundabout which is uncomfortably close to the crossing.

As the attached states, to keep to construction design standards regarding gradient the site of the current roundabout on Pipers Way/Station Road would have to be raised by around 10ft anyway. There is a specific gradient that has to be achieved if the bridge is to meet standards and it can't be solved by keeping the roundabout at current level and making the ramp steeper.

(from the letter)
"...although the local benefits are plain to see, the benefits to the strategic road network will be minimal. Indeed the environmental issues associated with the increase in traffic along this route may well cancel out the traffic flow benefits. "

Ironically, the railway itself has demonstrated that just along the line, the cost of the flyover at Reading was huge, but all done just to avoid a few minutes delay to trains. So the question is really one of wanting an acceptable transport infrastructure which will sustain the local economy.

Network Rail were prepared to dig deep into their pockets to support that scheme as it directly impacted on their timetables and DfT concurred that it was a positive strategic decision for UK Plc's network based on delivering people and goods around the country. This level crossing is a short link road between a small Berkshire town and the A339 which is already subject to a 7.5t weight limit, so cannot be used strategically.

Where do you think the civil servants who run the Major Scheme funding at DfT will place this type of proposal?

Network Rail don't suffer delays, either of a few minutes or longer, because of the level crossing. Their passengers are fine. It's the motorists sat fuming in their cars that are delayed and Network Rail and their shareholders are hardly likely to agree to fund something to help resolve that, are they.....

Attached File(s)

 Level_crossing_letter_page_1b.JPG ( 94.06K ) Number of downloads: 6
 Level_crossing_letter_page_2.JPG ( 54.84K ) Number of downloads: 4

 

[Andy Capp]

…ahh yes, "The Greater Good" argument....

I assume you don't work at one of these businesses that would be demolished then...

That didn't get in the way of the Parkway and Faraday Road development. Where's Emily Pankhurst when you need one!

[spartacus]

Where's Emily Pankhurst when you need one!

Waiting around the top bend of the racecourse development?

[On the edge]

Lovely but quite typical response from WBC, which clearly demonstrates they (we) have absolutely no cohesive road transport strategy for this area. Of course, a bridge will herald demands for further road improvements and of course there will be an increase in emissions. There are quite obvious counters to both, which don't get a mention. Let's be honest, in detail terms, it's possibly a little less as credible than UKIPs proposal. Nonetheless, it was the right response from WBC and exactly fits with the Council's ethos. After all it is a very small, cash strapped authority whose horizons are consequently severely restricted. Anything bigger than the addition of a conservatory to the local museum or the management of public conveniences, necessarily has to be left to developers or national government. West Berkshire, unlike the wider publically owned Network Rail, really doesn't have the capacity or capability to look wider than the parish boundary.

[spartacus]

I'm intrigued as to why people might think Network Rail might want to contribute squillions to such an ambitious engineering project. From their perspective their facility works fine. Their default position would be to close it, not build OVER it.

[On the edge]

I'm intrigued as to why people might think Network Rail might want to contribute squillions to such an ambitious engineering project. From their perspective their facility works fine. Their default position would be to close it, not build OVER it.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Network Rail's flyover was only mentioned as an example of what strategic thinking can deliver. Of course, they aren't interested in building a bridge at Thatcham, not their bag. As for closing it, yes for them, that's the right answer, but does beg the question as to why they bridged Ufton - when even against the political hand wringing, closure would have been the most effective and cost efficient answer.

One answer for WBC to solve its Thatcham crossing issue would be to do just that, significantly down grade the road opposite and alter the Thatcham local road network in front to suit. In effect, this is what WBC believes it's electorate want; nothing wrong with that position, but why don't they say so?

[spartacus]

Well another record 1 hour 5 minutes from The SSE roundabout to the level crossing Failure of the barriers this time. cannot remember the last time a bridge broke down.

Seriously.... you sat in a queue for 1 hour 5 minutes over that short a distance when there are numerous junctions and turning areas you could have used to get yourself out of that queue and find a different way around.. With a 'Washwaterman' username you're not an out-of-townie so should have been able to work out how to get to where you needed to get to avoiding the queue. I can only assume you were getting paid and were using it as an excuse not to get to work

[spartacus]

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Network Rail's flyover was only mentioned as an example of what strategic thinking can deliver.

You keep mentioning 'strategic'. There's nothing 'strategic' about Crookham Hill or Thornford Road. It's a back road rat run avoiding Newbury to get to Basingstoke. It's not even a B Class road.

One answer for WBC to solve its Thatcham crossing issue would be to do just that, significantly down grade the road opposite and alter the Thatcham local road network in front to suit. In effect, this is what WBC believes it's electorate want; nothing wrong with that position, but why don't they say so?

For the most part that road is just what I'm after. Out of peak hours it's a good cross country route to use as a start point to get to Basingstoke or to the Tesco/retail park side of Newbury for most Thatcham dwellers. In peak hours it's a nightmare, with dumb people sat in queues for over an hour not knowing what to do. Outside of peak it's perfectly acceptable.

[Simon Kirby]

Seriously.... you sat in a queue for 1 hour 5 minutes over that short a distance when there are numerous junctions and turning areas you could have used to get yourself out of that queue and find a different way around With a 'Washwaterman' username you're not an out-of-townie so should have been able to work out how to get to where you needed to get to avoiding the queue. I can only assume you were getting paid and were using it as an excuse not to get to work

I don't understand your position on this spartacus. Why such vehemence? If a bridge is a poor choice then there will be objective evidence to support that reasoning, but I would like to see an informed public debate with the various proposals and options given a thorough airing because on the face of it the Thatcham/Newbury conurbation already needs an eastern by-pass and all the time we build the need increases and the options reduce so for me there's no time like the present.

[Andy Capp]

Seriously.... you sat in a queue for 1 hour 5 minutes over that short a distance when there are numerous junctions and turning areas you could have used to get yourself out of that queue and find a different way around.. With a 'Washwaterman' username you're not an out-of-townie so should have been able to work out how to get to where you needed to get to avoiding the queue. I can only assume you were getting paid and were using it as an excuse not to get to work

With the Brimpton Road shut and Boundary Road shut and the consequential traffic on other route(s), the ideal options to get to Greenham Common are limited.

[Andy Capp]

I don't understand your position on this spartacus. Why such vehemence? If a bridge is a poor choice then there will be objective evidence to support that reasoning, but I would like to see an informed public debate with the various proposals and options given a thorough airing because on the face of it the Thatcham/Newbury conurbation already needs an eastern by-pass and all the time we build the need increases and the options reduce so for me there's no time like the present.

I agree. If only Newbury had a long term strategy rather than their short-termism, we might have had the inner distribution routes the town deserves.

The problem in south Thatcham is not going to go away, but each administration takes one look and goes: *sharp intake of breath* too hard, lets just say there's nothing that can be done.

[Andy Capp]

You keep mentioning 'strategic'. There's nothing 'strategic' about Crookham Hill or Thornford Road. It's a back road rat run avoiding Newbury to get to Basingstoke. It's not even a B Class road.

Until there's a burst water main, or a road closure, or the fkwit council 'allow' two 'relief' roads to be closed at the same time, and then the barriers fail = cluster fk.

For the most part that road is just what I'm after. Out of peak hours it's a good cross country route to use as a start point to get to Basingstoke or to the Tesco/retail park side of Newbury for most Thatcham dwellers. In peak hours it's a nightmare, with dumb people sat in queues for over an hour not knowing what to do. Outside of peak it's perfectly acceptable.

In other words: you don't have to use those routes at peak time, so screw those that do, eh?

[Andy Capp]

You keep mentioning 'strategic'. There's nothing 'strategic' about Crookham Hill or Thornford Road. It's a back road rat run avoiding Newbury to get to Basingstoke. It's not even a B Class road.

Which is exactly the problem: Newbury and Thatcham don't have a main southeast relief/distribution road/route.

[Simon Kirby]

Which is exactly the problem: Newbury and Thatcham don't have a main southeast relief/distribution road/route.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is an easy solution, but a solution is all the same necessary, and I would like to see a broad public debate of the options because it's going to cost a lot of money and whatever we choose it won't be universally popular.

[Phil]

[Andy Capp]

Can we quote you on that?

[x2lls]

I trust you have evidence to support that comment?