Castletown Bypass - Western Access Road

[highguyuk]

This website below gives a little more info on the "Stafford Bypass".

http://www.route6.co.uk/m6timeline.html

I actually thought there was a different story to this but there seems to be quite a few google links that relate to the same story.

 

[Wyred]

This website below gives a little more info on the "Stafford Bypass".

http://www.route6.co.uk/m6timeline.html

I actually thought there was a different story to this but there seems to be quite a few google links that relate to the same story.

Have a look at this link

 

[kyoto49]

Why can's Stafford just sort an integrated transport system instead of all this new road building. Its pretty well documented that more roads = more cars. It seems that there is plenty of money for new roads, but none for a bus station? If instead of a new road the land was used for a bus station, near the train station and Arriva halved there prices, many more people would find it better to use public transport.

Secondly, many of the journeys in Stafford are short, and easily cycleable, I mean Stafford is pretty flat. Yet, the cycle routes around town, with a couple of exceptions are a joke. Instead of building new roads, how about proper cycle routes, and I don't mean lines painted on the road ala Tixall Road, I mean proper cycle routes ala the Dutch where cyclists have priority, there own traffic lights etc.

Sure the planners won't listen but heyho!

 

[basil]

Why can's Stafford just sort an integrated transport system instead of all this new road building. Its pretty well documented that more roads = more cars. It seems that there is plenty of money for new roads, but none for a bus station? If instead of a new road the land was used for a bus station, near the train station and Arriva halved there prices, many more people would find it better to use public transport.

Secondly, many of the journeys in Stafford are short, and easily cycleable, I mean Stafford is pretty flat. Yet, the cycle routes around town, with a couple of exceptions are a joke. Instead of building new roads, how about proper cycle routes, and I don't mean lines painted on the road ala Tixall Road, I mean proper cycle routes ala the Dutch where cyclists have priority, there own traffic lights etc.

Sure the planners won't listen but heyho!

Top post i'm with you all the way one on this one........

 

[Wyred]

What Planners!!!

 

[henryscat]

Why can's Stafford just sort an integrated transport system instead of all this new road building. Its pretty well documented that more roads = more cars. It seems that there is plenty of money for new roads, but none for a bus station? If instead of a new road the land was used for a bus station, near the train station and Arriva halved there prices, many more people would find it better to use public transport.

Secondly, many of the journeys in Stafford are short, and easily cycleable, I mean Stafford is pretty flat. Yet, the cycle routes around town, with a couple of exceptions are a joke. Instead of building new roads, how about proper cycle routes, and I don't mean lines painted on the road ala Tixall Road, I mean proper cycle routes ala the Dutch where cyclists have priority, there own traffic lights etc.

Sure the planners won't listen but heyho!

In principle I agree with where you're coming from... There could easily be more cycling in Stafford and more use could be made of public transport.

Where people are put off cycling is that more down to perceptions/attitudes about cycling than whether or not there are cycle paths everywhere?

Thanks to how the Department for Transport assess things, it is easier to get money for road schemes than it is for serious public transport investment. The reason is that in cost/benefit analysis (which the DfT require for any scheme over £5 million that they are being asked to fund) a lot of emphasis is placed on putting a money value on time savings. Basically - you project that a new road will save x seconds (it probably won't in reality, but put that to one side) per driver multiplied by a value of time at y pounds per hour, adds up to a lot of apparent benefit. For public transport, time savings are more difficult to show, and public transport users are assumed to have a lower value of time... On top of that increasing public transport use by getting people out of their cars counts against you in the assessment process because you have to factor in loss of revenue to the exchequer in fuel duty/VAT. Its all completely bonkers really.

As for bus fares.... With the bus network in private hands, fares cannot to be dictated to Arriva or anyone else. There isn't really any incentive for them to decrease bus fares. Don't forget that a big proportion of passengers are OAPs with free passes. Bus operators are paid for OAP journeys on the basis of an average fare paid by fare-paying passengers. So, an operator cutting fares would then get a load less for carrying OAPs, whose travel behaviour isn't affected by fares level (i.e. they are not going to travel more often than they already do!).

The other thing I'd throw in is the planning system. Lots of big developments get built with lots of free parking which attracts traffic. Stafford has various retail parks and three big supermarkets all with free parking, all of which unfortunately provides an incentive to drive and drive more often (would you drive to the shops as often if you paid for parking?).

What's really needed is some serious changes to planning and transport policy nationally. Problem is at a local level whilst things can be done, there needs to be political backing for it.

 

[tek-monkey]

Bus fares are stupid, it costs more to get myself, GF and 2 kids around by bus than by taxi. Add to this that a taxi will take you door to door, comes generally when you want and will help you with any shopping etc. and its a no win situation for the bus company. At present levels once there are 2 people to pay for, a taxi is preferable. Thats another car on the road, slowing down everyone else.

I walk whenever possible, always have, but its a bit harder (and def slower) when theres kids involved.

 

[Gramaisc]

I walk whenever possible, always have, but its a bit harder (and def slower) when theres kids involved.

This may be helpful.

 

[Toble]

Thats another car on the road, slowing down everyone else.

Two points:


1. The taxi would be on the road anyway, and
2. Taxis slowing people down? After all the complaints that we drive around thinking we're Stirling Moss?

 

[tek-monkey]

More cars on the road means everyone slows down, not just because its a taxi. Also surely if more people use taxis, because they are cheaper than the bus, we will need more taxis to accomodate them?

 

[Sofa]

Please read this post regarding a public meeting being held to discuss the Western Bypass next Monday.

 

[Toble]

I shall probably attend the meeting. I'll bring a bucket. I may need it to hold all the sets of car keys which will be confiscated from people who don't like the idea of new roads.

 

[Sofa]

I shall probably attend the meeting. I'll bring a bucket. I may need it to hold all the sets of car keys which will be confiscated from people who don't like the idea of new roads.

Alternatively, you could take a stroll along the M25 pretty much any time of day and ask the motorists parked in the fast lane how successful the London Orbital has been at relieving the capital's traffic problems...

Can anyone seriously deny the absolute rule of Parkinson's Law and that it applies to road building?

 

[Toble]

But, as I have pointed out before, a new road does not magically mean more cars. It just means more cars in that area. Thus there will be fewer cars elsewhere.

 

[tek-monkey]

People will buy more cars, then complain there is nowhere to drive them. Stop people driving cars, and they wont need more roads. Although of course our population is rising, so effectively we need to reduce the number of cars per household, not just stop people buying more.

 

[Sofa]

Thus there will be fewer cars elsewhere.

Not for long, though! The Department of Transport predicts a 57% increase in the number of cars on UK roads by 2031. Can you imagine Stafford with 57% more roads? We could end up with a super-network of roundabouts and traffic lights encircling the town centre, which, if it keeps expanding at the current rate, will just be one, huge Soup Kitchen, which would actually be quite fun and attract a lot of tourism, but that is another story. Big Shout Out to the Soup Kitchen posse, purveyors of the best lemon meringue pie money can buy!

 

[My Name is URL]

a new road does not magically mean more cars.

True but unfortunately (thanks to our inept council and government) more roads will lead to more new houses.... which bring with them more cars... which fill up the roads..... which put us in a vicious circle....

 

[henryscat]

But, as I have pointed out before, a new road does not magically mean more cars. It just means more cars in that area. Thus there will be fewer cars elsewhere.

It does mean more cars.... When new road space is built it attracts journeys that weren't being made before because of congestion and generates journeys because the new road makes it easier to travel. There are countless bypasses where the part of the road network that was bypassed now has just as much traffic on as pre-bypass. M6 Toll is one example - the M6 is now back to pre-M6(T) levels of traffic, whilst the M6(T) carries 40,000+ vehicles a day.

 

[henryscat]

True but unfortunately (thanks to our inept council and government) more roads will lead to more new houses.... which bring with them more cars... which fill up the roads..... which put us in a vicious circle....

Its more the other way round. Transport doesn't exist for the sake of transport, it exists because something the location of various activities (retail, housing, employment) generates a need for it. The government are dictating housing numbers, in turn planning authorities are told how many houses they have to find room for. That housing then needs transport infrastructure to support it.

 

[henryscat]

People will buy more cars, then complain there is nowhere to drive them. Stop people driving cars, and they wont need more roads. Although of course our population is rising, so effectively we need to reduce the number of cars per household, not just stop people buying more.

Car ownership doesn't have to be the problem - there are countries with higher car ownership but less car usage. Although, with attitudes to car use in the UK I'd agree that more cars probably will lead to more use.