Condemned: Twin Sails £1m road link damned by report (From Bournemouth Echo)

when will planners wake up and realise that pedestrians and other vunerable road users are MORE important than vehicles not less?

To be clear, a 'flying start to improving things' was a comment on the report which the select style committee will consider. That will make recommendations to the Council on what it thinks should be done to improve the existing situation in the short term and seek better results as more development takes place. The committee was set up because Leaders of the three political parties, on the council, agreed that there was a need for a thorough review.

How typical of the BOP councillors to go against the grain of public opinion on safety. They can't say they weren't warned!

The councillors who pushed this through were told they would have blood on their hands and indeed they now *do* have - just ask poor John Fletcher - and he won't be the last if they don't hurry up and DO something FAST.

The original road gyratory system was designed in 1980 - 32 years before the bridge came along - and 32 years behind the current road traffic usage but did they change or revise their plans? No did they heck! They are so stubborn and self opinionated, they just think no one but themselves if ever right!

They pressed on regardless of even a central government review of the road layout and pedestrians will pay the price - but they will all sit in their ivory towers as always!

BOP councillors are outdated and single minded - which is NOT what they were elected for is it?

Brian Clements wrote:
To be clear, a 'flying start to improving things' was a comment on the report which the select style committee will consider. That will make recommendations to the Council on what it thinks should be done to improve the existing situation in the short term and seek better results as more development takes place. The committee was set up because Leaders of the three political parties, on the council, agreed that there was a need for a thorough review.

Not good enough Councillor. Weasel words. Any apologies for going against all common sense in the first place? You are lucky John Fletcher has recovered, as otherwise you would all have had blood on your hands. But there's always someone else to blame isn't there.

I can't wait for the redevelopment of the Bus station.....wont that be fun?

Yet another triumph for our"Strategic ? Director Jim "Fiasco" Bright. Remember the ill fated Solar Pyramid ? Wasn't he also previously Head of Transportation Services ? How much do we Taxpayers fork out for such incompetence ??

Your headline (on the paper) is very misleading, "Condemned" when talking about a building/structure often means it is to be demolished, not simply to disapprove.

Yet more gross incompetence from the un-accountable money wasting Poole Council.

However it’s good that the Council have access to a bottomless pit of taxpayers money to do it all again properly.

Pedestrians are treated as pedants
not fit for purpose it seems, ironic
when you see all the hype about
keeping fit by walking and cycling!
I think walkers will have to stick to
the countryside or rambling on
Canford Heath!

portia6 wrote:
Pedestrians are treated as pedants
not fit for purpose it seems, ironic
when you see all the hype about
keeping fit by walking and cycling!
I think walkers will have to stick to
the countryside or rambling on
Canford Heath!

I agree. The cyclists who now seem to be flavour of the month are already travelling at speed on our footpaths, many, at night without lights. I am a pedestrian and keep fit by walking. I demand MY rights to unobstructed access to the pavements.

Power to the walkers yay! We don't
clog up the roads, we don't emit fumes
unless some idiot runs into us. Watch
out for speeding mobility scooters
especially in Weymouth!

Mostly considered opinions but ekimnoslen. BoP appear to pay lip service to cyclists, good for attracting grants, but marginalised or designed off the road, then villified for being on the pavement. In a week that the Olympic champion and his trainer were separately injured on the road, such nimby myopia is tragic. There is space for all if design for motorists is not allowed to dominate. I and others pointed out the folly of the councils outdated design in good time.

I proposed a motion to defer introduction of this scheme (pending consideration of alternative proposal preferred by local residents and cycling experts) in Full Council on 21st June 2011. This was supported by my fellow Poole People councillors and some LibDem councillors (but not Cllr Brian Clements who comments above). The motion was lost primarily because the Conservatives and some LibDems were afraid that a delay beyond the opening of the Twin Sails bridge would reflect badly on their bridge project. To be fair Conservative Portfolio Holder Cllr Dion and the Transportation Dept also claimed there would be a £200,000 cost saving if introduced early. The experts' report makes it clear that this figure was greatly exaggerated. Poole People has campaigned against the introduction of the gyratory system since October 2010 and we will continue to push for a system which fairly accommodates the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

Someone signed off the authority for this work to commence, that is the person who is to be held to account.
As a local tax payer, who was it please?

Irrespective of any 'mistakes' / 'misjudgements' and inevitable political posturing, it is to be hoped that Councillors will assert their rights to consult with and represent the people that elected them and not just or necessarily 'party' views that get established without due consultation with (and/or explanation to) the electorate at large.

Openness and transparency are promised by "localism" and must be delivered. We have had too many expensive lessons in the long history of our town concerning "how not to do it" and it shows !!!

To join others who want an end to incompetent transport management in Poole, please look at www.pooletraffic.co.
uk

ekimnoslen wrote:

portia6 wrote:
Pedestrians are treated as pedants
not fit for purpose it seems, ironic
when you see all the hype about
keeping fit by walking and cycling!
I think walkers will have to stick to
the countryside or rambling on
Canford Heath!

I agree. The cyclists who now seem to be flavour of the month are already travelling at speed on our footpaths, many, at night without lights. I am a pedestrian and keep fit by walking. I demand MY rights to unobstructed access to the pavements.

At least Poole council have now realised that cyclists need access to the pavement and have painted cycle lanes on pavements in several places (such as the long stretch along Ringwood Road and the stretches around the County Gates Gyratory)

Cyclists on the pavement rarely cause problems for pedestrians. What causes more trouble are CARS on the pavement - a problem that is far too common in the area. Many drivers park with two wheels on the pavement because they are too lazy to park next to the curb - this means pedestrians often cannot use the pavement two abreast and that pushchair or wheelchair access is impossible. This is even more of a problem with tradesmen at building sites who seem to think they can use the entire pavement for their vans.

Omni314 wrote:
Your headline (on the paper) is very misleading, "Condemned" when talking about a building/structure often means it is to be demolished, not simply to disapprove.

This is typical of the OHEC's 'sloppy' journalism.
Without the clarification given by Cllr Clements in this Comments section above, it could be interpreted from the final sentence in this website report that he thought that the introduction of this gyratory system offered 'a flying start to improving things.'
Grade D in English again for our beloved Echo reporters.

manyogie wrote:
Someone signed off the authority for this work to commence, that is the person who is to be held to account.
As a local tax payer, who was it please?

Was it the same muppet who signed off the Canford Bottom Roundabout or stuck traffic lights on Fleetsbridge roundabout.

Oh how strange...... it takes a critical report to see Poole Councillors commenting on here. As a council you have, over recent years, chosen to ignore public concerns about many things because you think you know best. Once again you have found to be in grave error! We, the public, are constantly undermined in our opinion and contribution because Poole councillors and officers think they know best. Incompetence has been proven once again and it's about time a few fell on their sword, Bright being one and Dion being another. If you were in it for us then you would consult in a more proper manner and LISTEN. But you are not in it for us, you are in it for YOU and taking home a friendly salary/expenses cheque every month. Well this has come back to bite you in the arse just like the Twin Sails shambles.

Total rowlocks....£30,000 review! It works, now tweak it. Mr Howells is raising a storm for nothing. If you want to throw money at it, listen to him. There is no problem! Go thru, bike or on foot, take care ( as you should) and all will be well. It is done. get on with it.

The botom line is we locals wanted a fixed bridge to holes bay instead we got yet another lifting bridge not many yards from the other one. The bridge is rubbish as is the roads but we are stuck with it now.

thevisitor wrote:
Oh how strange...... it takes a critical report to see Poole Councillors commenting on here. As a council you have, over recent years, chosen to ignore public concerns about many things because you think you know best. Once again you have found to be in grave error! We, the public, are constantly undermined in our opinion and contribution because Poole councillors and officers think they know best. Incompetence has been proven once again and it's about time a few fell on their sword, Bright being one and Dion being another. If you were in it for us then you would consult in a more proper manner and LISTEN. But you are not in it for us, you are in it for YOU and taking home a friendly salary/expenses cheque every month. Well this has come back to bite you in the arse just like the Twin Sails shambles.

Well said, and here is a reminder of a few other things:

1. The Fleetsbridge traffic lights decision provides us with proof that Poole Council has:
1.1 installed lights which have only increased congestion and have had no positive effect on road safety, more likely a negative effect overall, as could have been predicted before the original installation.
1.2 refitted the lights at further cost without proper consideration
1.3 been taken by surprise at the public’s reaction when they noticed that traffic flow was so much better without the lights.
1.4 retrospectively tried to fudge the comprehensive data they have to try to justify the incorrect decision already made without proper care to save face, rather than try to find the right solution and learn from it for future decisions.

2. The fudged conclusions produced by Poole are embarrassingly, blatantly flawed and despite repeated attempts I have not been able to get a single one of those involved to comment further on them or to answer one single simple question. Any professional safety decision maker welcomes any concerns and deals with them comprehensively.
3. Speed “cushions” in Creekmoor, that result in slowing the slowest cars, speeding up the fastest, and causing cars to drive head on in the middle of the road on a bend http://maps.google.c
o.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=5
0.739292,-1.99603&sp
n=0.001197,0.00246&t
=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll
=50.739404,-1.996036
&panoid=u96q9W7mPHxa
GBzNSQM-_g&cbp=12,17
7.18,,0,13.74

4. Speed limits being reduced to 30MPH on perfectly good safe non-residential dual carriageways, these subsequently becoming favourite enforcement locations for Dorset Road Safe instead of where speeding is actually dangerous, including the Speed on Green camera on Holes Bay.

5. Speed limits reduced on main dual carriageways such as Dorset / Canford way, without even considering the possibility of enforcing the current reasonable speed limit more effectively or investigating the causes of accidents and other potential solutions. This has inevitably become another road where enforcement resources are used to make money instead of saving life. See http://www.ukroadsen
se.co.uk/pdf/objecti
on.pdf . Dr Jonathan Pearson also presented a proper case to Poole TAG and was ignored. All of these limit reductions far below the natural safe road speed generally only resulting in contempt of all speed limits by the majority of drivers. Even the DfT understand this, http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/publications/ci
rcular-1-06/circular
-1-2006.pdf, page 7.

6. Traffic calming in Sterte: an absolute nightmare for the residents it was meant to protect: http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/95
52818.Sterte_residen
ts_fear_long_term_da
mage_to_homes_from_t
raffic_calming/

7. Tony Trent seems to be one of the councillors central to road safety decision making in Poole. He has demonstrated a total unsuitability to this kind of work, even commenting on the death of a motorcyclist due to the presence of a speed camera “He was doing 78 in a 50 limit. Enough said”.

8. Blind faith in the effectiveness of speed cameras, Martin Baker suggesting in defence of the Speed on Green camera that they reduce deaths by 20%, when there are zero deaths to reduce at the Speed on Green camera and even DRS said it wasn’t about accident reduction. The negative effects of speed cameras are horrendous: http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/neg.a
spx

9. No apparent efforts to manage traffic, reduce congestion, reduce disruption at traffic works, etc.

10. A new bridge that seems more concerned with cosmetics than improving traffic flow (and possibly, worse traffic flow overall due to yet more traffic lights) http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/91
69027.Damning_report
_on_Poole_s_gyratory
_system__buried__by_
council/ The first comment in this news article (NOT FROM ME): “Arrogant, pig-headed, contempt for the opinions of others who may just have more experience.......jus
t the sort of people to have as councillors.”

11. A parking enforcement car introduced on the promise of protecting school zig-zag zones but instead used to target anything that moves (even if it is still moving!) http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/95
55711.Learner_driver
_stops_to_let_car_pa
ss___and_gets___70_f
ine/?ref=la

dorsetspeed wrote:

thevisitor wrote:
Oh how strange...... it takes a critical report to see Poole Councillors commenting on here. As a council you have, over recent years, chosen to ignore public concerns about many things because you think you know best. Once again you have found to be in grave error! We, the public, are constantly undermined in our opinion and contribution because Poole councillors and officers think they know best. Incompetence has been proven once again and it's about time a few fell on their sword, Bright being one and Dion being another. If you were in it for us then you would consult in a more proper manner and LISTEN. But you are not in it for us, you are in it for YOU and taking home a friendly salary/expenses cheque every month. Well this has come back to bite you in the arse just like the Twin Sails shambles.

Well said, and here is a reminder of a few other things:

1. The Fleetsbridge traffic lights decision provides us with proof that Poole Council has:
1.1 installed lights which have only increased congestion and have had no positive effect on road safety, more likely a negative effect overall, as could have been predicted before the original installation.
1.2 refitted the lights at further cost without proper consideration
1.3 been taken by surprise at the public’s reaction when they noticed that traffic flow was so much better without the lights.
1.4 retrospectively tried to fudge the comprehensive data they have to try to justify the incorrect decision already made without proper care to save face, rather than try to find the right solution and learn from it for future decisions.

2. The fudged conclusions produced by Poole are embarrassingly, blatantly flawed and despite repeated attempts I have not been able to get a single one of those involved to comment further on them or to answer one single simple question. Any professional safety decision maker welcomes any concerns and deals with them comprehensively.
3. Speed “cushions” in Creekmoor, that result in slowing the slowest cars, speeding up the fastest, and causing cars to drive head on in the middle of the road on a bend http://maps.google.c

o.uk/maps?hl=en&
ll=5
0.739292,-1.99603&am
p;sp
n=0.001197,0.00246&a
mp;t
=h&z=19&laye
r=c&cbll
=50.739404,-1.996036

&panoid=u96q9W7m
PHxa
GBzNSQM-_g&cbp=1
2,17
7.18,,0,13.74

4. Speed limits being reduced to 30MPH on perfectly good safe non-residential dual carriageways, these subsequently becoming favourite enforcement locations for Dorset Road Safe instead of where speeding is actually dangerous, including the Speed on Green camera on Holes Bay.

5. Speed limits reduced on main dual carriageways such as Dorset / Canford way, without even considering the possibility of enforcing the current reasonable speed limit more effectively or investigating the causes of accidents and other potential solutions. This has inevitably become another road where enforcement resources are used to make money instead of saving life. See http://www.ukroadsen

se.co.uk/pdf/objecti

on.pdf . Dr Jonathan Pearson also presented a proper case to Poole TAG and was ignored. All of these limit reductions far below the natural safe road speed generally only resulting in contempt of all speed limits by the majority of drivers. Even the DfT understand this, http://assets.dft.go

v.uk/publications/ci

rcular-1-06/circular

-1-2006.pdf, page 7.

6. Traffic calming in Sterte: an absolute nightmare for the residents it was meant to protect: http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/95

52818.Sterte_residen

ts_fear_long_term_da

mage_to_homes_from_t

raffic_calming/

7. Tony Trent seems to be one of the councillors central to road safety decision making in Poole. He has demonstrated a total unsuitability to this kind of work, even commenting on the death of a motorcyclist due to the presence of a speed camera “He was doing 78 in a 50 limit. Enough said”.

8. Blind faith in the effectiveness of speed cameras, Martin Baker suggesting in defence of the Speed on Green camera that they reduce deaths by 20%, when there are zero deaths to reduce at the Speed on Green camera and even DRS said it wasn’t about accident reduction. The negative effects of speed cameras are horrendous: http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/news/neg.a

spx

9. No apparent efforts to manage traffic, reduce congestion, reduce disruption at traffic works, etc.

10. A new bridge that seems more concerned with cosmetics than improving traffic flow (and possibly, worse traffic flow overall due to yet more traffic lights) http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/91

69027.Damning_report

_on_Poole_s_gyratory

_system__buried__by_

council/ The first comment in this news article (NOT FROM ME): “Arrogant, pig-headed, contempt for the opinions of others who may just have more experience.......jus

t the sort of people to have as councillors.”

11. A parking enforcement car introduced on the promise of protecting school zig-zag zones but instead used to target anything that moves (even if it is still moving!) http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/95

55711.Learner_driver

_stops_to_let_car_pa

ss___and_gets___70_f

ine/?ref=la

Yawn zzzzzz

Cllr Mark Howell (Poole People) wrote:
I proposed a motion to defer introduction of this scheme (pending consideration of alternative proposal preferred by local residents and cycling experts) in Full Council on 21st June 2011. This was supported by my fellow Poole People councillors and some LibDem councillors (but not Cllr Brian Clements who comments above). The motion was lost primarily because the Conservatives and some LibDems were afraid that a delay beyond the opening of the Twin Sails bridge would reflect badly on their bridge project. To be fair Conservative Portfolio Holder Cllr Dion and the Transportation Dept also claimed there would be a £200,000 cost saving if introduced early. The experts' report makes it clear that this figure was greatly exaggerated. Poole People has campaigned against the introduction of the gyratory system since October 2010 and we will continue to push for a system which fairly accommodates the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

If Cllr Howell really wants 'to be fair', he might remember my comment at the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) that recommended going ahead with the scheme as a matter of urgency. The minute reports:
"Councillor Brian Clements then spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He informed the Group and Public that it had approved the adoption of the funding for the Scheme and not any other areas of the proposal. He stated that because different areas of the scheme were considered by different committees, it was necessary that the wider scheme needed to be considered as a whole and therefore put in a request on behalf of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee that a review be undertaken. He stated that the Consultations had taken place in the early 2000s and that a review needed to be undertaken by external experts. He was concerned that the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been given the impression that the Scheme had to take place but had heard tonight that this was not the case."
Cllr Xena Dion subsequently took the decision to proceed, based on the recommendation of TAG whose members voted:
FOR: Councillors Burden, Parker, Mrs Rampton, Stribley and Miss Wilson
AGAINST: Councillors Brooke, Mrs Clements and Trent.

tbpoole, you mind find it boring, I find it quite disgraceful.

Many moons ago i said it was the wrong bridge in the wrong place and the wrong road system ??? All this could have been avodid if they had put a up and over bridge in. Hamworthy to the Holes bay Road.

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, you mind find it boring, I find it quite disgraceful.

Anyone being bored by disgraceful 'decision making on our behalf' does surprise me. Such a person must believe that 'localism' is pointless and has no useful future. I hope there aren't very many such people in Poole or, if there are, they stay asleep.

Brian Clements wrote:

Cllr Mark Howell (Poole People) wrote:
I proposed a motion to defer introduction of this scheme (pending consideration of alternative proposal preferred by local residents and cycling experts) in Full Council on 21st June 2011. This was supported by my fellow Poole People councillors and some LibDem councillors (but not Cllr Brian Clements who comments above). The motion was lost primarily because the Conservatives and some LibDems were afraid that a delay beyond the opening of the Twin Sails bridge would reflect badly on their bridge project. To be fair Conservative Portfolio Holder Cllr Dion and the Transportation Dept also claimed there would be a £200,000 cost saving if introduced early. The experts' report makes it clear that this figure was greatly exaggerated. Poole People has campaigned against the introduction of the gyratory system since October 2010 and we will continue to push for a system which fairly accommodates the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

If Cllr Howell really wants 'to be fair', he might remember my comment at the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) that recommended going ahead with the scheme as a matter of urgency. The minute reports:
"Councillor Brian Clements then spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He informed the Group and Public that it had approved the adoption of the funding for the Scheme and not any other areas of the proposal. He stated that because different areas of the scheme were considered by different committees, it was necessary that the wider scheme needed to be considered as a whole and therefore put in a request on behalf of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee that a review be undertaken. He stated that the Consultations had taken place in the early 2000s and that a review needed to be undertaken by external experts. He was concerned that the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been given the impression that the Scheme had to take place but had heard tonight that this was not the case."
Cllr Xena Dion subsequently took the decision to proceed, based on the recommendation of TAG whose members voted:
FOR: Councillors Burden, Parker, Mrs Rampton, Stribley and Miss Wilson
AGAINST: Councillors Brooke, Mrs Clements and Trent.

Are those the same TAG members who twice decided to install unnecessary lights at Fleetsbridge, and then lied to the public about them saving £300,000, and then flatly refused to communicate about it? The same TAG members whole are responsible for all the other disasters I've listed?