-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Funding confirmed for Western Access Road in Stafford
- Thread starter Steve_b
- Start date
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
I think I may be in the minority here but I am in favour of the western access road (green route) because it should help to relieve traffic on Chell Road and Station Road. These roads are a nightmare at rush hour.
The new access road may also help encourage more investment in Greyfriars and Stone Road, both of which need it.
The new access road may also help encourage more investment in Greyfriars and Stone Road, both of which need it.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Mind if I ask whats wrong with the blue route that the green route solves? I still think blue with a new exit into Sainsburys car park makes more sense than moving the roundabout.
Steve_b
Well-Known Forumite
As SBC plan to restrict traffic on Chell and Station Roads in the future, (improve buss access etc) do you think the congestion will just be transferred to this new road?
Steve_b
Well-Known Forumite
This one will be built as it gives access to new Development, the EDR won't as the Housing will be built on the route instead.
Yalla
Well-Known Forumite
I hope that the National Press get hold of this if it gets the go ahead .... all very convenient !
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Let's translate that into plain speaking.
The EDR will not be built because it is in the financial interests of certain 'honourable' members of the council to build houses on there instead.
The Western road will be build because no 'honourable' members have any financial interest in the land it will be built on. It would be interesting, however, to know who owns the land that would then be freed up for housing, once the road is built.
It's all about the bottom line and the back pocket, allegedly.
Dabbler
Well-Known Forumite
I think the Western Access Road is good news, it might just take some of the pressure off the town centre. I think the junction by Halfords will have to be widened to cope with the volume of traffic though. Based on the growth of the Borough, we need some additional road infrastructure - i'm all for using public transport and bikes where we can, but to be honest until people are happy to get out of their cars, the road infrastructure we have is insufficient. People aren't happy when roads aren't built, and aren't happy when they are. It's a no win! The money is coming from central government, so if it hadn't come to Stafford, it would have gone somewhere else - think i'd rather we benefited from it!
All money comes from us, remember, but will we really benefit from a scheme that just shuffles the traffic jams around slightly?
Dabbler
Well-Known Forumite
I know that the money comes from us, rather it comes from us and we get some benefit! Would you rather there was no further development of Stafford at all? The only constant in this life is change. Stafford is nothing like the town I first moved to almost 20 years ago, there has been a lot of development, but if I look at the town I moved from, that is the same. We can't grow the population as much as we have done in recent years and not accommodate that somehow (and that isn't meant as a political point!)
gilbert grape
Well-Known Forumite
I personally have every faith in those in power to make another absolute balls up of another attempt at "traffic relief"!
The same way that the town centre roads were shut or restricted (Mill Bank etc) and force existing traffic round the town centre, they will restrict traffic on roads so it won't give the town extra capacity, just move it while creating extra traffic due to more houses!
Doing it right would be one thing. Doing it to satisfy statistics is another.
The same way that the town centre roads were shut or restricted (Mill Bank etc) and force existing traffic round the town centre, they will restrict traffic on roads so it won't give the town extra capacity, just move it while creating extra traffic due to more houses!
Doing it right would be one thing. Doing it to satisfy statistics is another.
Is there any way at all in which Stafford has been improved in the last twenty years? Perhaps someone from the council(s) would like to answer. (Hugely increased salaries for senior local gov doesn't count.)
cometcycle
Well-Known Forumite
I didn't catch the full story on the Local News last night but specifically heard mention of Doxey Marshes. Given how trees have often been removed with scant regard for their value I'm now fearing for the Wildlife at the Marshes.
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
I personally prefer the green route over the blue route because it will take traffic further away from the houses that directly front onto the existing (Sainsbury's) roundabout. I envisage the Sainsbury's roundabout will become much busier when the full link is completed. As such, in order to preserve the residential amenity of those people that live in properties directly fronting the existing roundabout I prefer the option that relocates the roundabout further away from these properties.
The green route also allows an area of greenspace to be created in front of these houses, which I believe will improve the approach into Stafford from Doxey.
I accept that the green route will incur additional cost and inconvenience, however I believe the residential amenity of those fronting onto Doxey Road should be taken into account.
The green route also allows an area of greenspace to be created in front of these houses, which I believe will improve the approach into Stafford from Doxey.
I accept that the green route will incur additional cost and inconvenience, however I believe the residential amenity of those fronting onto Doxey Road should be taken into account.
markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
Steve B, I am not a traffic expert I am just a Stafford resident that uses Chell Road and Station Road often. I believe the new link road would take some traffic off Station Road and Chell Road. How many vehicles? I have no idea, but I hope it's enough to justify the cost, inconvenience and to solve the existing problems.