A bit of traffic common sense at last!

[Geoffrey Settle]

Wasn't Harpers Road built as a through access road originally ,because more or less soon after Fearnhead Lane  was blocked  & i'm sure it was several years before the expressway was finished from Orford Road  to Crab Lane/ Woolston Grange Avenue.

 

And what if the planned expressway had been completed and crossed Orford Road heading into Town?

[inky pete]

Let's say that each house generates on average 1.5 cars leaving the area during the morning peak hours to go to work, take kids to school, go shopping, travel to college, whatever. Now a mid sized car, Ford Focus or similar, is about 15 feet long so 825 houses times 1.5 cars each times 15 feet, and then add in a 3 foot gap between queuing cars and it's obvious that the residents cars alone would produce a line of traffic 7400 yards long if they all left at the same time - that's 4.2 miles of cars from the residents alone!

 

Disagree.

 

What? You disagree with basic arithmetic????

[Bazj]

"This town needs an enema" to quote a line from the Batman movie.... but it so applies to Warrington. It needs a ring road; desperately to get rid of all the criss-crossing traffic that clog up the roads. The council should do whatever it takes to make it happen because without it, and if they continue to grant planning permission without building the infrastructure to cope with it, the town will grind to a halt.

 

We have had countless "Traffic Visions" over the decades since the New Town Authorities left us without roads but with plenty of buildings and our own council has never done anything to address the problems except to build an inadequate set of single track roads here and there..... I imagine we have as a borough have spent as much on cycle paths (that don't hardly get used) and 20mph signs as we have on roads infrastructure over the past 5 years. Preferring to spend money on slowing traffic down (supposedly) instead of repairing and maintaining the pot-holed roads is just typical of the anti-car agenda which is rife across all of the councillors.... they would appear to put credence to the ramblings of a few tree-hugging cyclists rather than doing something that the town actually needs

[Geoffrey Settle]

What? You disagree with basic arithmetic????

Yes based on those assumptions it's flawed from the start

[Geoffrey Settle]

And what if the planned expressway had been completed and crossed Orford Road heading into Town?

Some of the rat run traffic would have used it earlier on route to Birchwood and the M62 junction.

 

The problem is that there are too many cars and too many on the road at the same time.

[inky pete]

Which of my assumptions is flawed Geoff, the only assumption I have made is the 1.5 cars per household - a perfectly reasonable figure given the types of housing on the cul-de-sacs off Harpers Road - and if you disagree where are your alternative figures?

 

The only figures you've so far stated is your assertion that you counted 40 cars turning into Harper Road in a single minute. Cars 1.5 seconds apart??? They'd have to be doing about 80mph to have passed you at that rate! The Highway Code states that based on the 2 second rule the maximum running capacity of a single motorway lane is 1800 vehicles per hour - or 30 vehicles per minute. And that's in a straight line not turning into a junction!

 

Further evidence that you're arithmetically challenged????

 

You state that "The problem is that there are too many cars and too many on the road at the same time." So your answer is to artificially REDUCE road capacity and close a bus route?

[Geoffrey Settle]

Which of my assumptions is flawed Geoff, the only assumption I have made is the 1.5 cars per household - a perfectly reasonable figure given the types of housing on the cul-de-sacs off Harpers Road - and if you disagree where are your alternative figures?

 

The only figures you've so far stated is your assertion that you counted 40 cars turning into Harper Road in a single minute. Cars 1.5 seconds apart??? They'd have to be doing about 80mph to have passed you at that rate! The Highway Code states that based on the 2 second rule the maximum running capacity of a single motorway lane is 1800 vehicles per hour - or 30 vehicles per minute. And that's in a straight line not turning into a junction!

 

Further evidence that you're arithmetically challenged????

 

You state that "The problem is that there are too many cars and too many on the road at the same time." So your answer is to artificially REDUCE road capacity and close a bus route?

Inky Pete - Why do youkeep saying 'Close a Bus route'? - Buses can and do go down Access Only roads - for example the 23, 23a, 17, 24 all go down Hilden Road.

[Davy51]

Coming through town, it took me nearly an hour to get from Walton Gardens to Newton this afternoon. There must be a lesson somewhere about making a new town out of an old town.

[inky pete]

Inky Pete - Why do youkeep saying 'Close a Bus route'? - Buses can and do go down Access Only roads - for example the 23, 23a, 17, 24 all go down Hilden Road.

 

There's a big difference between Access Only and Access Only Except Buses.

 

One implies that a road is physically closed off at some point along its length. The other confirms that it remains fully accessible.

 

If you are now changing your stance to Access Only Except Buses, then please answer the questions previously asked regarding policing and enforcement.

[grey_man]

Geoff.

 

I'm sure Rod King did speak at that meeting, but it won't have been about the results of the pilot scheme except maybe to obfuscate them. The results clearly show the pilot had no overall effect and in two of the three areas there was an increase in collisions, albeit based on very small numbers in the first place. It also showed that the reduction in speed is extremely marginal because most people drive intelligently at well under 30 mph when road conditions demand it.

 

I've seen Rod's response to anybody raising the fact that the council's pilot scheme showed no improvement in road safety nor environmental benefits and his response is invariably 'yah boo sucks' which is great except you and he are expecting the people of Warrington to cough up for a scheme costing hundreds of thousands of pounds that will achieve nothing while withdrawing important services that help people in their lives.  

 

It's clearly a classic case of the council wanting to do something, trialling it, then ignoring the results because they don't fit with a decision that has already been taken. The same goes for your 'consultations' which you seem genuinely surprised that people no longer take seriously. 

 

The police have also told you they're unlilkely to be aware of or do anything about anybody driving like a moron down one of those roads anyway whatever speed limit you set. They, as is common to forces across the country know that you can only enforce 20mph speed limits with traffic calming measures. So I expect that will be the next useless piece of road clutter for you to add on to our bills.  

 

This is all about something else and you've said it yourself - modal shift. Unfortunately local public transport is poor, expensive and irrelevant in many cases anyway because you (the council) think people should work in one place, live in another and shop in three or four retail parks / supermarkets.

 

Meanwhile, the idea we're all going to take to our bikes like we live in 1950s Peking falls apart the moment you contemplate trying to cross Bridgefoot or indeed many of the other obstacle courses in Warrington that are perilous enough in cars.   

 

I know nobody in the council is going to change their mind whatever evidence you are shown. That is your mindset, but you cannot then complain that people are cynical about the way decisions are taken and money spent.

[Coffee]

Geoff. Don't worry about what other agencies are up to but seeing as you've raised those issues. 

 

1. When are the council going to close large parts of their own loss-making car parks and stop subsidising staff parking by shifting the burden for it onto shoppers and local businesses as they attempt to make a profit on parking? 

 

2. When is the council going to promote development of the town centre rather than out of town retail parks which would encourage people to use public transport? And when I say 'promote' the town centre, I don't mean spending a fortune on big plant pots/urinals while granting planning permission for another kebab house to replace a shop as you've just done.

 

3. When is the council going to make bus fares attractive?

 

4. When is the council going to develop an infrastructure plan to deal with the bottlenecks?

 

5. We know slowing traffic down will not reduce accident numbers or improve the environment or reduce congestion. So why are you spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on it?

 

I just hope I don't have to wait for a response to these for as long as my previous question asking you to give examples of when a council consultation/survey/pilot led to a change in the direction of a policy. 

 

Is it not a little unfair to ask staff to pay for parking at work? A lot of staff are not that well paid and car parking facilities are cost of employment.

 

 

Ah, but apparently in council la-la land a bus with slightly lower emissions is greener even when it's running empty most of the time because the fares are too high.

 

Why do they not use mini buses is beyond me?

 

On an unrelated point, if the council is so skint, how come it gave (or is giving) serious consideration to lending £42 million to a recently loss-making Internet retailer to build a warehouse (ho-hum) at Omega?  

 

They will borrow it at a low rate, it is not unusual for council to give initiatives to businesses, I do not think.

 

I'd still like to know what evidence there is that Harpers Road is actually being used as a "rat run" by non-residents (which most of us would just call a possible route from where we are to where we're going) anyway.

 

There was evidence from a Woolston resident admitting they use Harpers Road to go from their house in Manchester Road to Birchwood High School every morning they wanted the road to remain the way it is. Also inferred evidence from Woolston Parish Council who argued that if Access Only was made their roads would feel the build up of traffic that couldn't use the "Rat Run"

 

So now we know who is causing the traffic, a Woolston resident!!!

 

Which of my assumptions is flawed Geoff, the only assumption I have made is the 1.5 cars per household - a perfectly reasonable figure

 

Because the figure is 1.49 per houshold in that area I believe!!!!

 

Some of the rat run traffic would have used it earlier on route to Birchwood and the M62 junction.

 

The problem is that there are too many cars and too many on the road at the same time.

So closing off a road is your solution, or do you believe it will reduce the number of cars on the road

 

The council could stagger school times and open council offices later in the day and so on.

 

Mean while could you pleas consider shutting Orford Green to Traffic please

[grey_man]

It may not be unusual for a council to offer to help businesses but for a council pleading poverty to offer £42 million to a very young Internet retail company that made a loss last year so that it can open a warehouse with 'up to' 2000 jobs on a piece of land that means plenty of non-Warringtonians will get them? Really?

 

I'd agree with you about staff parking except, by lumping this in with residents' parking and car parks for shoppers then setting an objective of making a 'surplus' (mustn't use the word profit obv.) across all three, they dug a hole for themselves, especially when only the shoppers' car parks were making a 'surplus' to begin with and the other two are both loss making and potentially problematic.     

[Geoffrey Settle]

Ok Grey Man as you say we are poles apart but the cost of speed bumps would be even more expensive and for many years now under a variety of differently run councils has lost favour.

 

I have lived in a road that has been 20 mph for several decades and in general residents have adhered to it. When they don't their neighbours tend to remind them of the fact with a friendly word in their ear.

 

Howebver I think that residents of Harpers road will be supporting you in your bump campaign if and when the Access Only is defeated so you have some support from some of the residents on that issue. Do you think that this will help them and will they have your support?

[grey_man]

Ok Grey Man as you say we are poles apart but the cost of speed bumps would be even more expensive and for many years now under a variety of differently run councils has lost favour.

 

I have lived in a road that has been 20 mph for several decades and in general residents have adhered to it. When they don't their neighbours tend to remind them of the fact with a friendly word in their ear.

 

Howebver I think that residents of Harpers road will be supporting you in your bump campaign if and when the Access Only is defeated so you have some support from some of the residents on that issue. Do you think that this will help them and will they have your support?

 

What bump campaign?

 

We're only poles apart because my opinion is based on facts (ie the pilot scheme showed 20 mph limits don't improve safety) whereas your view is that by making life as difficult as possible for people, you can get them to ride bikes across the lethal war zone that is Bridgefoot.   

[Bazj]

Looking at the DFT guidelines on 20mph, has Warrington got it wrong? I now have a "20 Zone" sign at the entrance to my close in Westbrook, but no repeater signs or traffic calming measures; humps etc. but on Sandy Lane West and Cleveland Road, there are  20mph limit signs and repeater signs (no use of the word "Zone") and speed humps and chicanes in place.... surely this is the opposite to what the DFT see as the characteristics of the two types of road as below:

 

20mph limits are areas where the speed limit has been reduced to 20 mph but there are no physical measures to reduce vehicle speeds within the areas. Drivers are alerted to the speed limit with 20mph speed limit repeater signs.

20mph limits are most appropriate for roads where average speeds are already low, and the guidance suggests below 24mph. The layout and use of the road must also give the clear impression that a 20mph speed or below is the most appropriate.

 

20 mph zones use traffic calming measures to reduce the adverse impact of motor vehicles on built up areas. The principle is that the traffic calming slows vehicles down to speeds below the limit, and in this way the zone is becomes „self-enforcing‟. Speed humps, chicanes, road narrowing, planting and other measures can be introduced to both physically and visually reinforce the nature of the road.

[inky pete]

Wouldn't be the first time WBC got things ar*e about backwards!

[Coffee]

Still would like to hear from the councillor why he thinks some residents should have access only roads and others have to put up with lots of traffic?

[grey_man]

Still would like to hear from the councillor why he thinks some residents should have access only roads and others have to put up with lots of traffic?

Good luck with that. 

[Coffee]

Good luck with that. 

You think?

 

I guess there is not much chance of him supporting closing of Orford Green either, do you think?

[grey_man]

How long do you think we should give him?

 

Could be months or indeed never.  

 

I'm still awaiting an answer to my question of when a public 'consultation' ever significantly changed what the council was going to do anyway. It's almost as if they first decide what to do, then carry out out 'pilots' and 'consultations', ignore the results and do what they first thought of and - when it all goes wrong - say "well, we carried out a consultation". 

[Coffee]

How long do you think we should give him?

 

Could be months or indeed never.  

 

I'm still awaiting an answer to my question of when a public 'consultation' ever significantly changed what the council was going to do anyway. It's almost as if they first decide what to do, then carry out out 'pilots' and 'consultations', ignore the results and do what they first thought of and - when it all goes wrong - say "well, we carried out a consultation". 

 

Maybe he does not understand the question?