Next phase of £1million Three Towns Travel project in Ashley Road will cause ‘more disruption’

DELAYS: Roadworks continue on Ashley Road in Poole

DELAYS: Roadworks continue on Ashley Road in Poole

First published in News by

THE first phase of work to improve a major Poole road is progressing well and the second phase, which will cause more disruption, is soon to start.

Improvements to Ashley Road at Parkstone have centred around work to pedestrian, cycling and traffic around the junction with Mansfield Road.

It includes renewing kerb lines, carriageway and footpath surfacing to make crossing easier for disabled people and those with buggies or pushchairs.

Cycling routes have been improved, traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment and the banned left turn for vehicles from Mansfield Road into Ashley Road removed.

The next part of the £1million improvements, part of the Three Towns Travel project, involves resurfacing the junction and installing new signal equipment.

So far there has not been much disruption to road users however to allow pedestrians to safely cross the junction while the new work takes place, additional temporary traffic controls will be in place during the week beginning March 31.

Borough of Poole is warning that there may be additional congestion at peak times as the junction will have reduced capacity. Mansfield Road will also be closed to all traffic during April 3 and 4.

John Rice, engineering manager, Borough of Poole, said: “These works are moving on at a pace and local people should soon see some initial improvements to Ashley Road.

“However, we recognise that there will be some disruption to road users during the next phase of works and would like to thank drivers for their patience while these improvements are carried out.”

The next phase of the rolling programme of works on Ashley Road involves improvements to the Richmond Road junction, where work is planned to start on Monday April 14.

More work along Ashley Road will be carried out in the autumn.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:25pm Tue 1 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

This may debatably 'improve' the road for cyclists and buses, but be assured if you are a motorist and/or local shopper this will not improve anything - in fact under the 'Three Towns Travel' project quite deliberately the complete reverse.
This may debatably 'improve' the road for cyclists and buses, but be assured if you are a motorist and/or local shopper this will not improve anything - in fact under the 'Three Towns Travel' project quite deliberately the complete reverse. muscliffman
  • Score: 10

12:28pm Tue 1 Apr 14

master plan says...

Can't see what any of these improvements will achive. I thought these improvements was to beat congestion and aid travel????
Can't see what any of these improvements will achive. I thought these improvements was to beat congestion and aid travel???? master plan
  • Score: 11

12:43pm Tue 1 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right!
So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right! suzigirl
  • Score: 8

1:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Isosceles says...

'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment'
I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .
'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment' I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' . Isosceles
  • Score: 8

1:45pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Branksome snail says...

I think you have to aid motorists, pedestrians or cyclists. You cant do all three. Money is available for cyclists now. In a few years when thats all been proved to be a waste because everyone will be in electric cars anyway, they will do it all again, but motorists will favour I hope.

In the early victorians we had the canal ways, then in the mid victorian age we had 1000s of miles of railways, then we had 1000s of miles of motorways. The councils reverse the trend and honestly think we're all going to hop on a bicycle because a bit of money is available.

Or.... is it a menas of putting all the business rates up afterwards because of the "improvements"? The Three Towns project is part funded by central government. Maybe the council plan to use this money for longer term financial gain, because nothing they seem to do seems to be for the good of anyone else.

Also, the M1 was built at the rate of 1 mile every week and a bridge every three days. When they did the top of Ashely road lasy year it took about 9 months to do one small roundabout and a bus stop.
I think you have to aid motorists, pedestrians or cyclists. You cant do all three. Money is available for cyclists now. In a few years when thats all been proved to be a waste because everyone will be in electric cars anyway, they will do it all again, but motorists will favour I hope. In the early victorians we had the canal ways, then in the mid victorian age we had 1000s of miles of railways, then we had 1000s of miles of motorways. The councils reverse the trend and honestly think we're all going to hop on a bicycle because a bit of money is available. Or.... is it a menas of putting all the business rates up afterwards because of the "improvements"? The Three Towns project is part funded by central government. Maybe the council plan to use this money for longer term financial gain, because nothing they seem to do seems to be for the good of anyone else. Also, the M1 was built at the rate of 1 mile every week and a bridge every three days. When they did the top of Ashely road lasy year it took about 9 months to do one small roundabout and a bus stop. Branksome snail
  • Score: 5

2:44pm Tue 1 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Isosceles wrote:
'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment'
I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .
Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them.
[quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: 'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment' I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .[/p][/quote]Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them. muscliffman
  • Score: 2

3:03pm Tue 1 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

suzigirl wrote:
So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right!
It's quite simple.

Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement.

Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic.

The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there.

If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it.

You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi
an.com/sustainable-b
usiness/reasons-busi
ness-leaders-danish-
style-cycling
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right![/p][/quote]It's quite simple. Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement. Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic. The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there. If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it. You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling boardsandphotos
  • Score: -9

3:47pm Tue 1 Apr 14

boyerboy says...

The three towns project.....

Tinseltown
Toytown
Troytown

for all the good it will do
The three towns project..... Tinseltown Toytown Troytown for all the good it will do boyerboy
  • Score: 7

3:51pm Tue 1 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Three Clowns Project more like. It's the plethora of buses stopping every hundred yards while going down overlapping bus routes that cause most of the problems. Sort out the buses into a more sensible route coverage, and the rest of the traffic would probably flow better, meaning the buses would be quicker too!
Three Clowns Project more like. It's the plethora of buses stopping every hundred yards while going down overlapping bus routes that cause most of the problems. Sort out the buses into a more sensible route coverage, and the rest of the traffic would probably flow better, meaning the buses would be quicker too! speedy231278
  • Score: 6

4:43pm Tue 1 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
suzigirl wrote: So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right!
It's quite simple. Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement. Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic. The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there. If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it. You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling
What you don't seem to comprehend is thousands of pounds has been spent on cycle lanes for cyclists but they don't use them!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right![/p][/quote]It's quite simple. Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement. Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic. The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there. If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it. You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling[/p][/quote]What you don't seem to comprehend is thousands of pounds has been spent on cycle lanes for cyclists but they don't use them! suzigirl
  • Score: 9

5:22pm Tue 1 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

muscliffman wrote:
Isosceles wrote:
'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment'
I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .
Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them.
I'm planning a party, but it's on hold awaiting a positive comment from 'mustmoanman'.....co
uld be a long wait!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: 'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment' I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .[/p][/quote]Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them.[/p][/quote]I'm planning a party, but it's on hold awaiting a positive comment from 'mustmoanman'.....co uld be a long wait! tbpoole
  • Score: -5

5:40pm Tue 1 Apr 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Isosceles wrote:
'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment'
I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .
Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them.
I'm planning a party, but it's on hold awaiting a positive comment from 'mustmoanman'.....co

uld be a long wait!
Got many coming to your party?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isosceles[/bold] wrote: 'traffic signals replaced with low voltage and energy efficient equipment' I bet that the cost of doing this far outweighs any so-called 'savings' .[/p][/quote]Naturally, but it's incorrectly perceived as trendy 'green' and we are paying the cost - not them.[/p][/quote]I'm planning a party, but it's on hold awaiting a positive comment from 'mustmoanman'.....co uld be a long wait![/p][/quote]Got many coming to your party? rayc
  • Score: -7

5:54pm Tue 1 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

suzigirl wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
suzigirl wrote: So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right!
It's quite simple. Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement. Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic. The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there. If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it. You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling
What you don't seem to comprehend is thousands of pounds has been spent on cycle lanes for cyclists but they don't use them!
No what people don't comprehend is that a 12" wide strip of green tarmac covered in gutter debris, that has cars parked on it, is interupted by bus lanes and doesn't cover a lot of places cyclists wish to go (which is everywhere) is not a sufficient enough. Take a look at the news article I posted, if we are to truly embrace the move towards cycling then this is the model we need to go with.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So does that mean no cyclists on the pavement then - yeah right![/p][/quote]It's quite simple. Make the roads safe for cyclists and you will see less of them on the pavement. Encourage more people onto cycles and that will result in less traffic. The more cycle paths the better, cyclists want to go where cars and pedestrians go, which is everywhere, not be restricted to a strip of cycle path here, a strip of cycle path there. If cyclists are to be constantly berated on here by pedestrians and motorists alike then why not accept that cycling is a perfectly normal and logical form of transport and therefore suitable infrastructure is included to accommodate it. You should all take a look at this article - http://www.theguardi an.com/sustainable-b usiness/reasons-busi ness-leaders-danish- style-cycling[/p][/quote]What you don't seem to comprehend is thousands of pounds has been spent on cycle lanes for cyclists but they don't use them![/p][/quote]No what people don't comprehend is that a 12" wide strip of green tarmac covered in gutter debris, that has cars parked on it, is interupted by bus lanes and doesn't cover a lot of places cyclists wish to go (which is everywhere) is not a sufficient enough. Take a look at the news article I posted, if we are to truly embrace the move towards cycling then this is the model we need to go with. boardsandphotos
  • Score: -6

7:24pm Tue 1 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is?
Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is? boardsandphotos
  • Score: -5

10:44pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is?
Cause you talk ****!
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is?[/p][/quote]Cause you talk ****! Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: -2

5:20am Wed 2 Apr 14

pete woodley says...

No comment from the mayor of parkstone ?.
No comment from the mayor of parkstone ?. pete woodley
  • Score: 1

6:40am Wed 2 Apr 14

boardsandphotos says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is?
Cause you talk ****!
Well please, it's an open forum, debate the point.
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: Plenty of people happy to give a thumbs down, not many are able to tell me why that is?[/p][/quote]Cause you talk ****![/p][/quote]Well please, it's an open forum, debate the point. boardsandphotos
  • 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