|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Bypass success story - can it be mesaured by the busyness? (Read 7341 times)
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Where ever practical, I use the train or bus .... but I didn't have time to wait for the train up from Westbury to Trowbridge then the bus into Melksham this morning (and I wasn't going to wait for the next train at 19:35), so I drove. The A350 which parallels the railway from the M4 near Chippenham down past Westbury to Warminster was never built to take heavy modern traffic. Over the years, some bypass sections have been built - some of the earliest being around Lacock and Melksham. Then Trowbridge was bypassed, then Chippenham, and most recently the stretch past Semington. "Thank goodness" said the locals who used it every day at that last section; a journey of 5 miles could tke 45 minutes, and longer on those mornings that the hump-backed bridge had caught another lowloader. But all is not well.  Semington Bypass has been built as 1 lane each way, and it was "clagging" this morning. It took me 3 times as long to get along there as when it was newly opened less than 24 months ago.  The traffic flow is pretty heavy both ways. Chippenham bypass is also suffering with a great deal more traffic, and the Melksham bypass is creaking too. The Melksham bypass doesn't actually bypass ALL of Melksham either and the section past Leekes can be a 45 minute queue. Then you get to the accident blackspot of Beanacre, where the speed limit has been lowered and lowered again to get the death rate down (and the speeding fines up?). We don't hear very much about those paritcular jams, but we DO hear a lot about Westbury, on the same road. Quite apart from the routing and cost of a bypass there, any action taken to relieve the A350 at Westbury would just compound the problems elsewhere .... so perhaps someone had better start budgetting to Widen the Seminton and Chippenham stretches, and the Yarnbook section, and to put in a new bypass to the East of Melksham right through to the North of Beanacre. There might be another way. Most of those vehicles you see are private cars with just one passenger. Had there been a suitable public transport service available, I would have used it and more and more others are looking to use public transport too. Forget the "selfless, green" motive .... there would be a selfish motive too - a good train service on a route that ALREADY EXISTS is more relaxing, more comfortable, and should be cheaper. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
We don't hear very much about those paritcular jams, but we DO hear a lot about Westbury, on the same road. Quite apart from the routing and cost of a bypass there, any action taken to relieve the A350 at Westbury would just compound the problems elsewhere .... so perhaps someone had better start budgetting to Widen the Seminton and Chippenham stretches, and the Yarnbook section, and to put in a new bypass to the East of Melksham right through to the North of Beanacre.
There might be another way. Most of those vehicles you see are private cars with just one passenger. Had there been a suitable public transport service available, I would have used it and more and more others are looking to use public transport too. Forget the "selfless, green" motive .... there would be a selfish motive too - a good train service on a route that ALREADY EXISTS is more relaxing, more comfortable, and should be cheaper.
I firmly believe most road building is just a short term fix to congestion, in many ways I think new roads actually encourage new journeys that people didnt think they could make before, leading more traffic on to them than used the old roads (hey - we can get to xxxx quicker now, why dont we move there / shop there etc etc) The eagle eyed out there will note that the Chippenham and Semington stretches have been built with future dualling in mind (over bridges wide enough and land available etc) I also strongly believe that a frequent reliable train service along the parralel line would be well used and offer the public a choice. The problem seems to be pursuading those with the ability to make this happen realise that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
A 3 - day exhibition will be held at the Laverton in Westbury later this month giving people the chance to look at aerial maps of the proposed Westbury bypass. (link below.) http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/latestheadlines/display.var.1479828.0.westbury_bypass_plans_to_go_on_show.phpWiltshire County Council and West Wiltshire District Council are jointly hosting the three-day event which runs from Thursday June 28 to Saturday June 30. Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe , cabinet member for environment , transport and economic development , said: "The bypass will represent a most significant change for Westbury and this exhibition is a real chance for everyone to find out more about this very important project." "As well as getting the chance to talk to people directly involved in the project, people visiting the exhibition will get the chance to have their say about the improvements on the way forward for their town." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
It's far from clear to me whether or not the Westbury bypass will bring the benefits that its advocates are suggesting; I remain concerened that it will (if built) simply move the conjestion north to Yarnbrook, North Melksham and Beanacre - worsening the conditions there by accellerating traffic past Westbury and encouraging extra traffice from the A36 traffic via Bath, and other routes, onto the A350. But I've seen long term plans for a new bypass to the East of Melksham and past Beanacre - at least to the extent of reserving land for them to be built ... and the Semington and Chippenham bypasses are engineeered for dualling too.
So the Westbury bypass really shouldn't be considered in isolation, but as part of a project to remove all bottenecks from the A350 from the M4 motorwat to the north of Chippenham right through to Warminster and beyond. And really the financial cost and long term environmental effect of that whole should be considered at this stage. At a time when environment is becoming key (global warming, etc), and we're being encouraged to use public transport, it strikes me as potentailly peverse to build this major new road from Warminster up to the M4 when there are other much cheaper options that consider with if anything - a longer term view.
The bypasses are great at avoiding the towns.
A public train service - let us say running every hour - from Salisbury and points south thereof all the way to Swindon, Oxford and points to the North East of that - would cut the need for all these roads that AVOID the centres of towns where many people want to travel to and from. Gateway bus services from stations such as Melksham, where the main A350 is just a stone's throw from the station - would take in other communities. The trackbed is already wide enough to add a second track all the way, which would deal with the engineering issues far more easily than (Westbury Bypass + Avon bridge at Beanacre + Yarbrook + ...)
And I'm not anti-road; there would still be traffic on the roads and perhaps a need to improve some of the bottlenecks. I've noticed that the A36 approaching Bath from the South and the A46 heading North to the morotway come within 300 metres of each other to the East of the city ... and yet all the heavies and traffic have to queue in and out on the A4.
If the Stockport example should prove to be the light of joined-up thinking at the DfT, wouldn't it be great? The fruits of having the SRA rolled into the DfT?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Quote from Nick's link : "following an exchange of letters between themselves and Wiltshire County Council, an agreement had been reached by the two authorities that once the East of Westbury Bypass was constructed, the A350 could be used as a bypass for Bath" See following quote : This is an interesting achive document (link below.) http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/committee_papers/PTandE/pt001116/23crossbo.htm"5.2 Somerset's Cheddar-Frome corridor strategy (CFCS) envisages developing quality bus partnerships for the Bristol to Wells and Bath to Shepton Mallet routes. The strategy sees the former as being a possible express service operating along the A37 through B&NES and co-ordinated with the existing low floor Bristol to Yeovil service. There may be the potential to link this in some way with a more direct service from Norton-Radstock to Bristol along the same corridor. For the Shepton Mallet- Bath route, which also currently serves Norton-Radstock, the strategy seeks a better link service. Both these future route developments and associated partnerships would complement B&NES LTP objectives." "6.1 Consultants Parkman carried out a study for Wiltshire County Council into the potential for rail development in Western Wiltshire. The study showed that a rail service from Swindon serving Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge and Westbury would be feasible although annual revenue support of some £350,000 would be needed. To achieve an hourly service from Frome/Warminster to Swindon could cost double this figure in revenue support, at least in the short term." 2. The last November (just before the franchise was awarded), the First Group offered to perpetuate the present service level for a cost of 0.3 million pounds per annum, and this would have lead to a 2 million pound reduction in the 1100 million pound franchise premium had it been accepted. "7.1 WWSTS identifies A350 as main spine road serving the corridor linking the M4 to the A36 near Warminster. Parts of the route are seen as being unsuitable for the volume and weight of traffic carried, particularly as it passes through Westbury, Semington and Melksham. The strategy is to construct new highway links at these locations to reduce environmental problems. The Westbury Bypass would be a major scheme costing some £12m and planned for 2004/6; the Semington-Melksham Diversion is costed at £9m with a planned construction period of 2001/-4. Funding for these two projects is being sought through the LTP process and the strategy document hopes that the GOSW A36/A46 study will "add further support to proposals to ease transport problems along the West Wilts corridor". (The GOSW study is the subject of another agenda item)." "8.1 A freight study was completed by consultants Parkman for Wiltshire County Council earlier this year. The results were used to draw up a freight strategy which forms part of the Wiltshire LTP. In total, surveys showed that 85% of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) on Wiltshire's roads had an origin and/or destination in the county. The study highlighted the role of the A350 and the problems along this route. The consultants concluded that "there is a need for a strategic north-south corridor on the west side of Wiltshire to cater for both south coast port traffic en-route to South Wales and the West Midlands, and for strategic traffic serving the West Wiltshire area. On balance we consider that the A350 meets these needs better than the A36/A46 and therefore we support the case for improvements along the A350 through Wiltshire". This recommendation has been carried forward into the Wiltshire LTP and the strategy identifies the A350 as the strategic lorry route pending the outcome of the GOSW A46/A36 de-trunking study. The outcome of this GOSW study is reported on separately and Members will be aware that the routeing of this HGV traffic is a major issue." "8.4 Promotion of rail freight features prominently in both the Wiltshire and Somerset strategies. The Wiltshire LTP supports the development of a freight terminal at Westbury to serve the West Wiltshire Trading Estate; this could be linked to a future Westbury Bypass and also include overnight lorry parking and driver facilities. In Somerset a detailed rail freight demand study is planned. Possible freight facilities are identified at Frome, at Shepton Mallet involving the extension of the East Somerset Railway, and in association with the Merehead Quarry facility. Reference is also made in the CFCS to the freight potential to be investigated for the Frome-Radstock line." An interesting article in the Bath Chronicle (see here) describes how the City's leaders will be voting next week to ban lorries from the City, and that they're even going to be paying for signage to divert lorries coming up the A36 to the motorway OFF the A36 / A46, and onto the A350 through Westbury, Yarnbrook, Melksham, Beanacre and Chippenham. The article says that they've consulted on this, and it's what the people of Bath want. 1. Can they, unilaterally, put this ban in place and/or do they already have approval from Wiltshire / North Wilts / West Wilts? 2. What will the effect of adding all the extra through HGVs from Warminster to the M4 be on the A350, a road that has major sections that were never designed as a trunk road? 3. The people of Bath have been asked. Have the people of Wiltshire been asked, and what was their view? My personal view is that it would be inappropriate to put all the extra traffic on the A350 in its current state. The A350 is already set to take the best part of 109,000 journeys per year as from December, plus lots of other growth ... I understand than consultation inoput can be sent today to democratic_services@bathnes.gov.uk on this. In other words, a moderate increase in traffic could be caused by a removal of the majority of passenger trains and a massive increase in freight, and that is what you're foreseeing? Here are some more quotes , the first two from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006. On future capacity requirements : "changes to the timetable structure to reduce the mix of different train types and the number of conflicting moves." "Between Didcot and Oxford the mix of non stop passenger and freight services with local services calling at little used stations reduces the ability to maximise capacity." I quote from FGW's web site ...
[i]Over the term of the franchise we will invest £200 million in a programme of continuous improvement bringing a wide range of customer benefits, increased capacity, safety and service. We will also work with Network Rail to tackle deep-rooted performance issues on the Greater Western network.
Our immediate priorities are to ensure a smooth integration of the three franchises; introduce a new Timetable in December 2006; and deliver service improvements for our customers as early as possible. In other words , Network Rail would like to work with TOC's to remove local or stopping services , in order to free up capacity and improve performance. First agree with this , mainly because they have been directed to by the DfT. Before we let First off the hook , it should be remembered that both their bus and railfreight sectors benefit from this. It should also be remembered that both First & Network Rail can propose a closure under the new DfT Closure Guidance. As far as the medium - long term future is concerned , I feel that this quote from the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 is appropriate : "The RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) also recommends that commercial developments which generate high volumes of freight movements should be located close to appropriate rail freight facilities to support more sustainable distribution in the South West." Have a look at the link below. http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=311.msg859#msg859And section 8.5 of this one. http://www.transport2000.org.uk/library/RoadstoRuin/section_08.htmQuote from the above link : "More serious attention needs to be given to freight movements through the county. In particular, there is potential for mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor. A rail-freight terminal at Westbury is planned, but this is some distance from proposed route of bypass. The parallel rail line (Westbury-Melksham-Chippenham-Swindon) has only one train per day in each direction but the service is due to be improved." Since the above was written , the number of freight trains has increased on the Melksham line. All in all , it would be fair to say that I am not optimistic , Graham. I also noted this from Graham's recent Daily Update (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/melkshamrailway/211_We_have_another_hill_to_climb.html"It's very easy at times like this to question the genuine-ness with which the bodies have been taking to us / negotiating - the term "managing expectations" which one of the civil servants quoted as a part of his job role comes ringing back in my ears, and I wonder if we've been lead on and / or conned. There's certainly strong circumstantial evidence to point that way .... but then I really can't believe that everyone would have put in so much time and effort if there was no intent to do what they could to provide an appropriate service all along." At what point does "circumstantial evidence" get regarded as something more concrete? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
courgettelawn
|
"At what point does "circumstantial evidence" get regarded as something more concrete?"
Whenever anyone who feels like it thinks so. Wiltshire have just received the green-light from Hazel Blears on the basis of circumstantial evidence so it is all, as ever in politics, a matter of perception.
As for "managing expectations," am I the only one who thinks that at every level of government we are being treated like spoilt children who are told, "you will get what you are given and that too what I think you should be given" ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
As for "managing expectations," am I the only one who thinks that at every level of government we are being treated like spoilt children who are told, "you will get what you are given and that too what I think you should be given" ? I think its safe to say that you are not the only one who thinks that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
The subject of whether a Westbury bypass could have a knock on effect further up the A350 has been mentioned (personally I think it will)
Interesting then to note that a traffic census is currently being carried out on the Chippenham Western Bypass, with areas coned off at the roundabouts with poloce and highway staff handing out survey cards for drivers to fill in and post. Ironically this has been casuing even more traffic congestion!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
The subject of whether a Westbury bypass could have a knock on effect further up the A350 has been mentioned (personally I think it will)
Here, from Ruth Kelly's "Sustainable Transport" report published on 30th October (i.e. just last week) is Wiltshire .... zoomed from a national map.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Here is text to go with that map:
Ruth Kelly and the Department for Transport has just published (30th October 2007) their report entitled "Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World", and I took a look at some of its 90 pages. Page 27 includes a diagram showing road conjestion, and I've reproduced a zoomed section here.
* Roads shown in red cause an annual total loss of up to 139000 hours per km
* Roads shown in Orange cause an annual loss of between 6500 and 28000 hours
* And roads shown in blue cause a loss of under 6500 hours per km per annum.
(There are no roads on this section with a loss of over 139000 hours per km.)
You can see the major North - South traffic flows at the Western end of my map - a fairly clear run up from Salisbury to Warminster, but the two severely overloaded road routes from that area via Bath to the M4 (that's to the left) and via Chippenham to the M4 (that's to the right).
The towns of Swindon, Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury and Warminster - and Salisbury and Frome too - are slated for major growth with up to 50% more homes in the next 20 years.
I undertstand that an agreement bewteen Wiltshire County Council and BaNES (Bath and North East Somerset) will route additional traffic via the right hand leg to relieve the left hand leg once the section at Westbury has been bypassed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
 |
