More on this (link below.)
http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=146238&command=displayContent&sourceNode=146064&contentPK=17623025&folderPk=100268&pNodeId=145795

Apparently , council chiefs said more than £1m was being spent on environmental measures , including building green bridges over the road for wildlife to cross , and new hedges for bats to follow.

I have added a comment to that newspaper article, as follows:

I had a chance to pop in to the exhibition while it was open to the public yesterday. As Mr Hawker commented, it was very well and professionally laid out and the case for the bypass was pesuasively presented.

You'll note that I come from a town that's a few miles north on the A350, and I'm worried that improvements to the route, such as a Westbury Eastern bypass, will draw new traffic even above any natural growth into the area, and onto feeder roads. The exhibition's diagrams confirmed that such a draw of extra traffic is expected - it shows a 42% rise in HGV traffic on this trunk road heading north out of the area, beyond the bypass.

Speaking with two of the experts present, I understand that the various studies on the road impact that were being shown have only looked as far north as the Semington Roundabout. And that worries me, as I can imagine places such as Beanacre and the North Melksham area going into gridlock if the majority of the extra HGV traffic tries to get through there on existing, unimproved roads.

I was down in Exeter at a public enquiry on Tuesday (first time I've even been to one!) and shocked at the 200 to 300 million figures that came up for improving the A350 all the way from Warminster to the motorway. A more managed approach, and making full use of the parallel rail corridor - maintained to mainline standards, but with just 2 passenger trains a day (07:00 and 19:35 from Westbury) and existing earthworks if it needed to be doubled to take more freight would be a much more sensible option.

I don't know. 

Since the 42% rise quoted was in addition to the normal, natural rise of traffic (i.e. the changes shown were based on what would be speciacally dragged in by the change in road layout), I had assumed that most of the extra traffic was A36 / A46 diversions.   But now that you mention it, Lee .... if their model did not go north of Semington, then it probably didn't reach the Bath 'burbs either - so it may be a severe underestimate!

If I appear to be a bit woolly, I did asked for further information from the representitives who were there at the exhibition to speak to the public about the scheme and the public's concern - however, they did not have the answers to hand, describing my question of traffic levels further north as a "detail".   I think that's a question of perspective - I think that a surge of 42% (and perhaps more) of additional traffic through Beanacre would be regarded as rather more than a "detail" by the people who live there.

I don't, Pete.  From Melksham to Swindon takes me 25 minutes by train (if I happen to want to leave Melksham at 07:17 or 19:50), and otherwise 95 minutes, starting off by bus and with changes in Devizes or in Chippenham.   I think a word or two (such as "me") has been changed in the sentence which has personalised it in an inappropriate way - a misquote in that sense but otherwise accurate.  I talked about the corridor on which I live as a whole, with the times stated in each case being from Westbury to Swindon, end to end.  I've learnt that you can's look at any transport issues without looking over the borders and right to the ends.  Indeed, the EIP on Tuesday looked beyond the South West as it talked about links in and out.

Journeys to and from Melksham are actually a minority of journeys along the "A350 corridor" (indeed no one town accounts for the majority of journeys), and the travel and transport needs should be looked at as a whole matrix.  Yet each of us individually lives in one of the towns or another, so there's a need to look wider and listen to others - otherwise we come up with unduly selfish suggestions. It's my view that an improved rail service, which has been costed at around 300k per annum, would be a significnt benefit to passengers right up and down this route.  And I've listened to, and been encouraged by people from Salisbury, from Warminster, from Dilton Marsh, from Frome.   From Westbury, from Trowbridge, from Chippenham and from Swindon, as well as from my own home town. Oh - and from further afield who visit or pass through the area.

Where do you live, Pete? What are public transport journey times like from your own home to places like Salisbury, Swindon and London? Would major improvements proposed to part of the A350 but not to other sections reduce or increase traffic past your place?  Do you commute along the corridor? What do you think of the various long term options compared, and how they balance out for everyone who lives in the towns along the route in terms of travel opportunities, personal environment, and tax cost? Please do help me fill in my understanding of the matrix further by giving your example as I have given mine.

The question being addressed when I spoke asked whether or not the draft RSS paid sufficient attention to the possibility of making the most of existing rail routes.   As the draft made virtually no mention of this, I quoted examples of where an existing route could, very cheaply in terms of transport costs, make a significant difference. I suggested that the RSS should be amended to make a stronger case for better use of existing rail.  I think only one speaker made comments that did not include such support.  As that wasn't yourself, can I take it that you'll join me in supporting strong rail development on the existing trackbed / earthworks to relieve all the towns?

Graham

Thanks for that extra background, Pete ... and I certainly understand and support your desire to move heavy lorries, and other traffic, away from the front of people's homes. Of course, the metrics / balance are quite tricky and it would be oh-so-easy for a scheme to relieve a problem in one area and create a new one elsewhere; that's my "complete corridor" approach / question (and, no, I don't know all the answers, or even a half of them).

We had something of a conundrum when First "pulled" most of the trains from the Swindon to West Wilts service, but instead ran some bus journeys from Frome and Trowbridge to Chippenham via the Station there (first 3 in the morning).  Should we support the move as a sensible improvement / better than having the farce of walking all across the town in Chippenham to catch the train, or should we be fully supportive and make any positive suggestions we could to help the service be more effective?   The conundrum related to the fact that the bus would pull a small proportion of the passengers who would otherwise use any trains, so would weaken the case for the trains to come back.  In the end, I concluded that I must (and I do) support and use the extra buses, even if in the long run it slightly lessens the case for the train.   I fear you, perhaps, have a similar conundrum when asked to support rail improvements that will cost a tiny proportion of a proper trunk road (and sections thereof) from the A36 to the M4 along a similar corridor to the current A350, so I'm grateful to you for your rail support.


Me too - but I wish it were always possible just as you do.

I COULD have caught the 06:44 from Melksham on Tuesday and got to Exeter Central, with 3 changes, for 09:21;  to return, the 16:42 would be my last connection of the day, getting me back into Melksham at 19:50, again with three changes.   Miss that, and the 23:01 (with a sleep on the platform for 5 hours at Salisbury) would have had me into Melksham at 07:17 the next morning.   Sorry - that's just too much time wasted and I drove.

Had the sort of minimum appropriate service that we're suggesting been running, I could have left home later to get to Exeter at lunchtime, and returned later in the evening.  And I would certainly have done so - cutting out my car journey that went right past your front door. 

Letter on subject in Wiltshire Times:

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/wiltshiretimesletters/display.var.1526293.0.traffic_warning.php