Road improvements to cause months of disruption

IMPROVEMENTS: Roadworks continue on Ashley Road in Poole

IMPROVEMENTS: Roadworks continue on Ashley Road in Poole

First published in News by

AS THE continuing improvements to a busy Poole road move on, work has started on another junction.

This phase of the rolling programme of pedestrian, cycling and traffic improvements in Ashley Road, Parkstone is scheduled to take three months and will cause some disruption to drivers.

The £1million pedestrian, cycling and traffic work in Ashley Road, Parkstone is part of the £12.1m Three Towns Travel scheme and work has moved onto the Richmond Road junction.

It includes renewing kerb lines and surfacing to make crossing easier for disabled people and those with pushchairs, improving cycling facilities, replacing traffic lights and removing the banned left turn for vehicles from Churchill Road into Ashley Road.

Borough of Poole has said that to ensure work can be completed as quickly as possible, access to Churchill Road is restricted to one way traffic for the three-months.

“These works are moving on at a pace and local people should soon see some initial improvements to Ashley Road,” said Julian McLaughlin, head of transportation services.

“Once Richmond Road is completed we are taking the opportunity while we are on site to carry out additional re-surfacing on other parts of Ashley Road, from Mansfield Road towards Jubilee Road.

“We recognise that there will be some disruption to road users during the next phase of works and would like to thank everyone for their patience while they are carried out.”

Temporary signals will be used to allow re-surfacing to take place and a closure of Churchill and Richmond Roads will be required for a few days toward the end of the works. Further work will take place in the autumn in the central area, between Jubilee Road and Albert Road.

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:30am Sun 20 Apr 14

BIGTONE says...

It's not going to improve traffic. No change there.
It's not going to improve traffic. No change there. BIGTONE
  • Score: 38

8:46am Sun 20 Apr 14

justme20092009 says...

stop wasting money on cyclists
stop wasting money on cyclists justme20092009
  • Score: 32

8:53am Sun 20 Apr 14

canfordcherry says...

I see Herbert Ave has temp road surface signs still on it.
I suppose that means they will be doing work there shortly whilst doing Ashley Rd and probably something on Wallisdown Rd as well.
Its normally the way isn't it?
I see Herbert Ave has temp road surface signs still on it. I suppose that means they will be doing work there shortly whilst doing Ashley Rd and probably something on Wallisdown Rd as well. Its normally the way isn't it? canfordcherry
  • Score: 9

8:57am Sun 20 Apr 14

Ralph Horris says...

I think it will be worth it if means there won't be any more traffic jams. Surely that's a good thing ?
I think it will be worth it if means there won't be any more traffic jams. Surely that's a good thing ? Ralph Horris
  • Score: -18

9:50am Sun 20 Apr 14

JustForPoole says...

Money would be far better spent on repairing pot holes at this moment in time ... but no ... we can continue damaging our cars, motor bikes and cycles !!!
Money would be far better spent on repairing pot holes at this moment in time ... but no ... we can continue damaging our cars, motor bikes and cycles !!! JustForPoole
  • Score: 37

11:30am Sun 20 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Make no mistake, if you drive a car be assured this Government funded 'Three Towns Travel' scheme is NOT and never has been intended to improve anything for you. It is however intended to make things better for cyclists and buses and so by default worse for motorists - that is the project's sole purpose whatever the fibbing Councillors and their PR people might say.

Richmond Hill roundabout, Boscombe, Castle Lane West, Somerford and now Parkstone, are all being blighted because our greedy Council's could not resist grabbing a huge Government hand out - even when it was for something most local residents never asked for, wanted and now increasingly object to having forced upon them.

Best to make a note of some of the key names involved in this fiasco before the 2015 elections!
Make no mistake, if you drive a car be assured this Government funded 'Three Towns Travel' scheme is NOT and never has been intended to improve anything for you. It is however intended to make things better for cyclists and buses and so by default worse for motorists - that is the project's sole purpose whatever the fibbing Councillors and their PR people might say. Richmond Hill roundabout, Boscombe, Castle Lane West, Somerford and now Parkstone, are all being blighted because our greedy Council's could not resist grabbing a huge Government hand out - even when it was for something most local residents never asked for, wanted and now increasingly object to having forced upon them. Best to make a note of some of the key names involved in this fiasco before the 2015 elections! muscliffman
  • Score: 24

12:39pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Western Sunset says...

I think the "temporary road surface" signs on Herbert Avenue revlieve the Council of any claims for damage to cars tyres and suspension. They would argue that drivers have been warned of the poor surface and should thus drive accordingly.
I think the "temporary road surface" signs on Herbert Avenue revlieve the Council of any claims for damage to cars tyres and suspension. They would argue that drivers have been warned of the poor surface and should thus drive accordingly. Western Sunset
  • Score: 10

1:20pm Sun 20 Apr 14

blackdog1 says...

Total joke and a waste of money! Spend it on repairing the road surface.Driving round Bournemouth town centre is like using roads in a third world country! I know ...let's spend masses on more cycling schemes!.....yeah brilliant that will do it!........still when it's all done we can all leave our cars at home and use a bike or bus to go to work and do the weekly shop.......like that's going to happen?
Total joke and a waste of money! Spend it on repairing the road surface.Driving round Bournemouth town centre is like using roads in a third world country! I know ...let's spend masses on more cycling schemes!.....yeah brilliant that will do it!........still when it's all done we can all leave our cars at home and use a bike or bus to go to work and do the weekly shop.......like that's going to happen? blackdog1
  • Score: 19

1:24pm Sun 20 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.
More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 18

2:19pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Turtlebay says...

Try driving up Constitution Hill in a lorry. The cycle lane is wider than the vehicle part! Were the line painters drunk on duty?
Try driving up Constitution Hill in a lorry. The cycle lane is wider than the vehicle part! Were the line painters drunk on duty? Turtlebay
  • Score: 21

3:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

cpf242 says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop wasting money on cyclists
Yeah,waste it on motorists instead.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop wasting money on cyclists[/p][/quote]Yeah,waste it on motorists instead. cpf242
  • Score: -8

3:25pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Luckily for me, my mini metro is able to use the pavements rather than fall into the potholes. It also forces oncoming cyclists to get back on the road where they should be.
Luckily for me, my mini metro is able to use the pavements rather than fall into the potholes. It also forces oncoming cyclists to get back on the road where they should be. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 11

4:33pm Sun 20 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.
What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt! tbpoole
  • Score: -12

4:50pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Valerie W. says...

I wonder how all these poor motorists are going to manage when there's no more petrol.
I wonder how all these poor motorists are going to manage when there's no more petrol. Valerie W.
  • Score: -16

4:59pm Sun 20 Apr 14

SeafaringMan says...

Well, well, well; what a bunch of negative naysayers here today - and it's Easter Day. Spread a little joy even if it is still raining!
Well, well, well; what a bunch of negative naysayers here today - and it's Easter Day. Spread a little joy even if it is still raining! SeafaringMan
  • Score: -13

5:41pm Sun 20 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.
What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt!
No, I would do a proper evaluation to find out if any adjustments could be made to REDUCE congestion, and if I could not identify any, I would leave things as they are.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt![/p][/quote]No, I would do a proper evaluation to find out if any adjustments could be made to REDUCE congestion, and if I could not identify any, I would leave things as they are. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

5:48pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

When they were at planning stage for the refurb of Seaview roundabout I went along to the public meeting at The Seaview pub and pointed out that having two bus stops opposite each other on the exit of a roundabout would undoubtedly cause traffic problems. Though in reality now, even if one bus stops there it is absolute chaos, forcing cars coming off the roundabout into the path of oncoming traffic and god help anyone on the crossing just in front of the bus stop. Yet it still went ahead as planned. Who are these people being paid money to design such stupid plans and who are the bigger idiots that actually approve them. Everything the council seems to do with traffic calming ideas seems to only ever make the problems even worse than they were before.
When they were at planning stage for the refurb of Seaview roundabout I went along to the public meeting at The Seaview pub and pointed out that having two bus stops opposite each other on the exit of a roundabout would undoubtedly cause traffic problems. Though in reality now, even if one bus stops there it is absolute chaos, forcing cars coming off the roundabout into the path of oncoming traffic and god help anyone on the crossing just in front of the bus stop. Yet it still went ahead as planned. Who are these people being paid money to design such stupid plans and who are the bigger idiots that actually approve them. Everything the council seems to do with traffic calming ideas seems to only ever make the problems even worse than they were before. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 9

6:03pm Sun 20 Apr 14

blackdog1 says...

Seawiew roundabout is an absolute disgrace! It looks barren and dirty and when a bus pulls in everything stops! Why on earth did they remove a nice planted roundabout with a circle of manky old dirty gravel? Looks like an inner city trade estate! Yeah thanks council for a wonderful welcome to parkstone shopping centre! Can't wait for the rest of the improvements! Here's a good idea you might like to try,repair the roads,make more parking,move some yellow lines make it easier for people to drive and shop!
Seawiew roundabout is an absolute disgrace! It looks barren and dirty and when a bus pulls in everything stops! Why on earth did they remove a nice planted roundabout with a circle of manky old dirty gravel? Looks like an inner city trade estate! Yeah thanks council for a wonderful welcome to parkstone shopping centre! Can't wait for the rest of the improvements! Here's a good idea you might like to try,repair the roads,make more parking,move some yellow lines make it easier for people to drive and shop! blackdog1
  • Score: 10

7:56pm Sun 20 Apr 14

master plan says...

Can't say I've seen any improvements. Waste of money if you ask me at the start it was all about travel and traffic between poole to Christchurch and to boost trade in the smaller towns but the more you read into it the more it about pedestrians, cyclist and buses.
So that's traffic management out the window before you start with the improvements geared to pedestrians and cyclists
Next getting the bus to Christchurch has anyone ever got the bus from poole to Christchurch? I have once in off peak time which is a 1hr 30min ride and once in peak time 2hrs plus. YOUR NOT GOING TO IMPROVE THAT!!!
You got travel through parkstone,westbourne
,Bournemouth and Boscombe. Unless bournemouth council sort out there problems it renders all this useless
Can't say I've seen any improvements. Waste of money if you ask me at the start it was all about travel and traffic between poole to Christchurch and to boost trade in the smaller towns but the more you read into it the more it about pedestrians, cyclist and buses. So that's traffic management out the window before you start with the improvements geared to pedestrians and cyclists Next getting the bus to Christchurch has anyone ever got the bus from poole to Christchurch? I have once in off peak time which is a 1hr 30min ride and once in peak time 2hrs plus. YOUR NOT GOING TO IMPROVE THAT!!! You got travel through parkstone,westbourne ,Bournemouth and Boscombe. Unless bournemouth council sort out there problems it renders all this useless master plan
  • Score: 6

8:17pm Sun 20 Apr 14

apm1954 says...

ashley road parkstone to be renamed atkinson way.
ashley road parkstone to be renamed atkinson way. apm1954
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Sun 20 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.
What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt!
No, I would do a proper evaluation to find out if any adjustments could be made to REDUCE congestion, and if I could not identify any, I would leave things as they are.
...and that proper evaluation would probably tell you, wouldn't it, that there are probably only two options to reduce 'congestion': widen the road or reduce the amount of car traffic on it?

Or do you have some hair-brained scheme that no-one else has ever thought of? Like more 'proper traffic police'?

Come on give us some practical ideas not rhetoric.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: More money down the drain, more congestion, pollution, more pointless traffic lights, etc etc. More frustrated and delayed drivers, more accidents, good grief, how can we stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]What would you do then? Pull down all the shops and build a 70mph dual carriageway no doubt![/p][/quote]No, I would do a proper evaluation to find out if any adjustments could be made to REDUCE congestion, and if I could not identify any, I would leave things as they are.[/p][/quote]...and that proper evaluation would probably tell you, wouldn't it, that there are probably only two options to reduce 'congestion': widen the road or reduce the amount of car traffic on it? Or do you have some hair-brained scheme that no-one else has ever thought of? Like more 'proper traffic police'? Come on give us some practical ideas not rhetoric. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

10:03am Mon 21 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic.

It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving.

There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do.

And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are.
tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic. It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving. There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do. And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Mon 21 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic.

It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving.

There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do.

And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are.
When Poole needs a new head of transport they must ask you first! (Not!).....why do you assume that many of the things you suggest might work aren't being done when quite possibly they are already in place? Oh and you may be a confident cyclist but there are those less confident who will appreciate the protection given by a cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic. It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving. There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do. And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are.[/p][/quote]When Poole needs a new head of transport they must ask you first! (Not!).....why do you assume that many of the things you suggest might work aren't being done when quite possibly they are already in place? Oh and you may be a confident cyclist but there are those less confident who will appreciate the protection given by a cycle lane. tbpoole
  • Score: -5

7:03pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Peroni says...

canfordcherry wrote:
I see Herbert Ave has temp road surface signs still on it.
I suppose that means they will be doing work there shortly whilst doing Ashley Rd and probably something on Wallisdown Rd as well.
Its normally the way isn't it?
Should have that sign made permanent , several poor attempts to re surface over many years , just breaks up shortly after been put down.
Who checks the standard or the materials used ?
All the roads in the area ....are a joke, can't blame the weather for poor materials or workmanship all the time.
[quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: I see Herbert Ave has temp road surface signs still on it. I suppose that means they will be doing work there shortly whilst doing Ashley Rd and probably something on Wallisdown Rd as well. Its normally the way isn't it?[/p][/quote]Should have that sign made permanent , several poor attempts to re surface over many years , just breaks up shortly after been put down. Who checks the standard or the materials used ? All the roads in the area ....are a joke, can't blame the weather for poor materials or workmanship all the time. Peroni
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Peroni says...

Need to teach busses not to block off roundabouts ,look at Branksome,you get 3 or more busses at the same time just blocking it off !
Traffic comes to a standstill ,and builds up behind the busses as well ,why don't they look at the volume of different busses on the same route at the same times ,some are empty !
But if any improvement is made ,it will be good,keep the traffic moving as there's nowhere to park ,and nothing worth stopping for now anyway.
Need to teach busses not to block off roundabouts ,look at Branksome,you get 3 or more busses at the same time just blocking it off ! Traffic comes to a standstill ,and builds up behind the busses as well ,why don't they look at the volume of different busses on the same route at the same times ,some are empty ! But if any improvement is made ,it will be good,keep the traffic moving as there's nowhere to park ,and nothing worth stopping for now anyway. Peroni
  • Score: 1

8:51pm Mon 21 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic.

It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving.

There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do.

And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are.
When Poole needs a new head of transport they must ask you first! (Not!).....why do you assume that many of the things you suggest might work aren't being done when quite possibly they are already in place? Oh and you may be a confident cyclist but there are those less confident who will appreciate the protection given by a cycle lane.
I've not seen any suggestion of any of the other things being promoted - in fact, all I've noticed is the withdrawal of school bus services in my area, again, increasing congestion, danger, pollution, etc. Delivery of services that work is much more than just about "appreciation" by those who might actually be better off with some training / education.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole demonstrating again his determination to be offensive and inflammatory over any kind of proper debate through substance and logic. It would be great if traffic police could help with keeping traffic flowing like in the good old days but I would prefer them (if we have any) to be targeting dangerous driving. There are all kinds of things that might help, encouraging staggering journeys, improving public transport, smarter traffic monitoring and control using new technology, encouraging more efficient driving, etc. What isn't going to help is what I can guarantee we will end up with. Lanes given over to cyclists which won't be used (I cycle all over Poole and Bournemouth and I don't need any lanes), pointless traffic light installations on roundabouts, etc. and traffic "calming", 20 limits, etc. I don't have the time to do full and proper evaluations but this is what I expect the council to do. And as I said, if I could not identify any (adjustments to reduce congestion), I would leave things as they are.[/p][/quote]When Poole needs a new head of transport they must ask you first! (Not!).....why do you assume that many of the things you suggest might work aren't being done when quite possibly they are already in place? Oh and you may be a confident cyclist but there are those less confident who will appreciate the protection given by a cycle lane.[/p][/quote]I've not seen any suggestion of any of the other things being promoted - in fact, all I've noticed is the withdrawal of school bus services in my area, again, increasing congestion, danger, pollution, etc. Delivery of services that work is much more than just about "appreciation" by those who might actually be better off with some training / education. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

2:47pm Tue 22 Apr 14

MarloweOS says...

Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic.
But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs).
After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested.
A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day.
Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money.
Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects!
You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families.
And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it! MarloweOS
  • Score: 3

5:20pm Tue 22 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

MarloweOS wrote:
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there!
[quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it![/p][/quote]Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there! tbpoole
  • Score: -1

5:52pm Tue 22 Apr 14

MarloweOS says...

tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there!
Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives.
How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m.
Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument.
Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community.
tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it![/p][/quote]Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there![/p][/quote]Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives. How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m. Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument. Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community. tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument. MarloweOS
  • Score: 3

10:33pm Tue 22 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

MarloweOS wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there!
Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives.
How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m.
Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument.
Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community.
tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.
You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million.
[quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it![/p][/quote]Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there![/p][/quote]Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives. How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m. Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument. Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community. tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.[/p][/quote]You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

11:20pm Tue 22 Apr 14

MarloweOS says...

tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there!
Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives.
How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m.
Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument.
Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community.
tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.
You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million.
Very true, there is very little in the way of public funding available.
George Osborne was seeking other sources of funding in his document labelled "Providing and Funding Strategic Roads" last year. There are other similar projects around that yield good cost to value (The A303 being the best apparently).
The answer is not to tarmac over the countryside, just complete the gaps in the road network in the sections reserved for it. This is where the best value for money comes in.
The local councils would need a government grant to finance infrastructure of this kind, and would need to show clear proof that an investment of this kind would return. Creating a case for rebuilding the Bournemouth Spur road is hard - because it would take several years before the money invested in rebuilding it was saved in repairs. The value of the road remains the same.
Unfortunately, the Wessex Way being incomplete also fails to prove the benefit of a high quality network - it is frequently referred to as simply moving the congestion a mile to the west each time it was extended. Once the gap is filled, there is no western bottleneck in which to reach.
And yes, we are running out of and relying heavily on Petrol. And electric cars are doing a really bad job of actively replacing them at the moment - but, when push comes to shove, the electric car will be favoured over public transport and cycling. (Cycling has worked very well in countries that are flat - just walking around Bournemouth proves that a lengthy journey is not practical everyday unless you intend to make a fitness regime out of it).
When these eco-friendly electric cars (assuming we can generate electricity eco-friendly) come out, they will inherit the road network from their petrol drinking predecessors, in equal numbers.
A large enough number of people are not going to move away from private transport to make a difference, no matter what improvements are put in place. It isn't economical. In London, the tube works because it is economical to run a train every few minutes. In the conurbation, a few buses try and run every few minutes, but are so slow, continually stop, and don't go exactly where you want to do. My definition of public transport "Takes you from where you are not, to somewhere you don't want to go, at a time that isn't convenient. But its close enough to be useful", competing against the private car. "Takes you from where you are, to where you want to go, when you want to leave. Providing you can find a space at either end".
I welcome yours and other peoples thoughts on this discussion.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it![/p][/quote]Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there![/p][/quote]Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives. How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m. Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument. Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community. tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.[/p][/quote]You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million.[/p][/quote]Very true, there is very little in the way of public funding available. George Osborne was seeking other sources of funding in his document labelled "Providing and Funding Strategic Roads" last year. There are other similar projects around that yield good cost to value (The A303 being the best apparently). The answer is not to tarmac over the countryside, just complete the gaps in the road network in the sections reserved for it. This is where the best value for money comes in. The local councils would need a government grant to finance infrastructure of this kind, and would need to show clear proof that an investment of this kind would return. Creating a case for rebuilding the Bournemouth Spur road is hard - because it would take several years before the money invested in rebuilding it was saved in repairs. The value of the road remains the same. Unfortunately, the Wessex Way being incomplete also fails to prove the benefit of a high quality network - it is frequently referred to as simply moving the congestion a mile to the west each time it was extended. Once the gap is filled, there is no western bottleneck in which to reach. And yes, we are running out of and relying heavily on Petrol. And electric cars are doing a really bad job of actively replacing them at the moment - but, when push comes to shove, the electric car will be favoured over public transport and cycling. (Cycling has worked very well in countries that are flat - just walking around Bournemouth proves that a lengthy journey is not practical everyday unless you intend to make a fitness regime out of it). When these eco-friendly electric cars (assuming we can generate electricity eco-friendly) come out, they will inherit the road network from their petrol drinking predecessors, in equal numbers. A large enough number of people are not going to move away from private transport to make a difference, no matter what improvements are put in place. It isn't economical. In London, the tube works because it is economical to run a train every few minutes. In the conurbation, a few buses try and run every few minutes, but are so slow, continually stop, and don't go exactly where you want to do. My definition of public transport "Takes you from where you are not, to somewhere you don't want to go, at a time that isn't convenient. But its close enough to be useful", competing against the private car. "Takes you from where you are, to where you want to go, when you want to leave. Providing you can find a space at either end". I welcome yours and other peoples thoughts on this discussion. MarloweOS
  • Score: 2

10:31am Wed 23 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

MarloweOS wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
MarloweOS wrote:
Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it!
Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there!
Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives.
How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m.
Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument.
Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community.
tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.
You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million.
Very true, there is very little in the way of public funding available.
George Osborne was seeking other sources of funding in his document labelled "Providing and Funding Strategic Roads" last year. There are other similar projects around that yield good cost to value (The A303 being the best apparently).
The answer is not to tarmac over the countryside, just complete the gaps in the road network in the sections reserved for it. This is where the best value for money comes in.
The local councils would need a government grant to finance infrastructure of this kind, and would need to show clear proof that an investment of this kind would return. Creating a case for rebuilding the Bournemouth Spur road is hard - because it would take several years before the money invested in rebuilding it was saved in repairs. The value of the road remains the same.
Unfortunately, the Wessex Way being incomplete also fails to prove the benefit of a high quality network - it is frequently referred to as simply moving the congestion a mile to the west each time it was extended. Once the gap is filled, there is no western bottleneck in which to reach.
And yes, we are running out of and relying heavily on Petrol. And electric cars are doing a really bad job of actively replacing them at the moment - but, when push comes to shove, the electric car will be favoured over public transport and cycling. (Cycling has worked very well in countries that are flat - just walking around Bournemouth proves that a lengthy journey is not practical everyday unless you intend to make a fitness regime out of it).
When these eco-friendly electric cars (assuming we can generate electricity eco-friendly) come out, they will inherit the road network from their petrol drinking predecessors, in equal numbers.
A large enough number of people are not going to move away from private transport to make a difference, no matter what improvements are put in place. It isn't economical. In London, the tube works because it is economical to run a train every few minutes. In the conurbation, a few buses try and run every few minutes, but are so slow, continually stop, and don't go exactly where you want to do. My definition of public transport "Takes you from where you are not, to somewhere you don't want to go, at a time that isn't convenient. But its close enough to be useful", competing against the private car. "Takes you from where you are, to where you want to go, when you want to leave. Providing you can find a space at either end".
I welcome yours and other peoples thoughts on this discussion.
MarloweOS I have to say you are absolutely spot on with your comments, I do truly cringe when I think of all the money being wasted on improving Ashley road, especially as the problem has been self generated by the ludicrous implementation of traffic calming of humps in Parkstone and 20 mile an hour speed limits. This has simply forced all the traffic onto Ashley Road and it simply cannot cope with it, no matter how much money the council throws at it. Only by creating a new alternative route will you ever alleviate the traffic.
[quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarloweOS[/bold] wrote: Wallisdown relief road - that would draw the traffic off of Ashley Road, Herbert Avenue and Wallisdown road. That then frees the roads up to handle what they should be handling, local traffic. But, theres this thing called "induced traffic", that says if we build the Wallisdown relief road, more people will get jobs further away, and use their car more and within 5 years we will be back to the same old congestion - wrong. Induced traffic only ever occurs when a new road is built based on the journeys people currently make. If a road is built based on the journeys people WANT to make, then it is impossible for the road to reach capacity (unless an accident occurs). After all, if I built a 3 lane motorway coming out of my back garden, leading only to my little house, I guarantee no matter how much induced traffic there is, it will never be congested. A 3 lane dual carriageway Wallisdown relief road would carry enough capacity for a quarter of the entire driving population of the conurbation to drive along it and back each day. Small scale schemes have small scale effects. The BEST value for money is achieved when gaps in the road network are filled. Linking the wessex way to the Dorset way is exactly the sort of scheme the government should be building to get value for money. Environmental concerns, if that land was not earmarked for the Wallisdown relief road, it would have had houses built on it decades ago. And no-one would have noticed! Build a road (something every person in Bournemouth and Poole will benefit from either directly or indirectly) and every one objects! You could save a couple of quid a day in petrol alone, around 30 minutes on a return journey, and be able to travel further to the job you want to do, and still get back in time for a meal with your families. And still you object. Why? I don't get it![/p][/quote]Fine if you've got the odd £80 million plus to spare and are happy to wipe out a large percentage of the remaining natural habitats across Poole and Bournemouth. All to save a couple of quid in petrol. Good econmic argument there![/p][/quote]Saving £2 per person, per day is £23 MILLION a year (assuming the road is half full), and a saving of 23 MILLION hours a year in time. That's the equivalent to 300 people working 40 hours a week for their entire lives. How is that not a good economic argument? The road would pay for itself in less than 4 years. Although realistically, to build the road to a good standard we would be looking at closer to £100 - 150m. Even if these figures are out by a factor of 10, its still a really strong argument. Yes it would use a percentage of the remaining habitat across Poole and Bournemouth, but that's part of this corridor, a 10m wide wildlife corridor, 5m for cycles, walking, 25m for the road, and 3m for services. All of which join Poole and Bournemouth together (for the first time ever) leading to a community. tbpoole, why would you not want to help yourself, and almost every resident in the conurbation save their time and money? - a large part of this time and money will help rebuild the economy. Please explain your side of this argument.[/p][/quote]You could use a similar argument to justify building thousands of new roads across the countryside but there just aren't enough public funds around. I doubt the local councils could find £8 million between them let alone £80m or even £150 million.[/p][/quote]Very true, there is very little in the way of public funding available. George Osborne was seeking other sources of funding in his document labelled "Providing and Funding Strategic Roads" last year. There are other similar projects around that yield good cost to value (The A303 being the best apparently). The answer is not to tarmac over the countryside, just complete the gaps in the road network in the sections reserved for it. This is where the best value for money comes in. The local councils would need a government grant to finance infrastructure of this kind, and would need to show clear proof that an investment of this kind would return. Creating a case for rebuilding the Bournemouth Spur road is hard - because it would take several years before the money invested in rebuilding it was saved in repairs. The value of the road remains the same. Unfortunately, the Wessex Way being incomplete also fails to prove the benefit of a high quality network - it is frequently referred to as simply moving the congestion a mile to the west each time it was extended. Once the gap is filled, there is no western bottleneck in which to reach. And yes, we are running out of and relying heavily on Petrol. And electric cars are doing a really bad job of actively replacing them at the moment - but, when push comes to shove, the electric car will be favoured over public transport and cycling. (Cycling has worked very well in countries that are flat - just walking around Bournemouth proves that a lengthy journey is not practical everyday unless you intend to make a fitness regime out of it). When these eco-friendly electric cars (assuming we can generate electricity eco-friendly) come out, they will inherit the road network from their petrol drinking predecessors, in equal numbers. A large enough number of people are not going to move away from private transport to make a difference, no matter what improvements are put in place. It isn't economical. In London, the tube works because it is economical to run a train every few minutes. In the conurbation, a few buses try and run every few minutes, but are so slow, continually stop, and don't go exactly where you want to do. My definition of public transport "Takes you from where you are not, to somewhere you don't want to go, at a time that isn't convenient. But its close enough to be useful", competing against the private car. "Takes you from where you are, to where you want to go, when you want to leave. Providing you can find a space at either end". I welcome yours and other peoples thoughts on this discussion.[/p][/quote]MarloweOS I have to say you are absolutely spot on with your comments, I do truly cringe when I think of all the money being wasted on improving Ashley road, especially as the problem has been self generated by the ludicrous implementation of traffic calming of humps in Parkstone and 20 mile an hour speed limits. This has simply forced all the traffic onto Ashley Road and it simply cannot cope with it, no matter how much money the council throws at it. Only by creating a new alternative route will you ever alleviate the traffic. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree