Ball rolling for £15million overhaul of A127 junctions

4:00pm Thursday 10th January 2013 in News

Traffic on the A127 Traffic on the A127

A SERIES of bottleneck junctions on the A127 could be given a £15million overhaul after council chiefs gave the project the thumbs-up.

Members of Southend Council’s ruling Tory cabinet have rubber-stamped a bid for Government cash to rework the Kent Elms, Bell and Tesco junctions – a rush-hour headache for pedestrians and motorists.

The improvements, which could get under way within three years, are seen as a key part of plans to create thousands of new jobs by encouraging private businesses to move to land around Southend Airport.

John Lamb, deputy council leader, said: “We have had a long-standing commitment as a council to making these improvements.

“I really do look forward to these coming forward as soon as possible, because it will make a real difference to this town.”

Campaigns to improve the congested Kent Elms and Bell junctions have been organised repeatedly over the past decade.

Council chiefs have turned their attention to the trouble spots after the completion of the £18million Better Southend projects at Victoria Gateway, Cuckoo Corner and Progress Road.

After running predictions of the amount of traffic which will be on the town’s roads by 2021, they decided improvements at the Tesco roundabout would also be required.

They aim to submit a bid to the region’s Local Transport Body, an alliance of Local Enterprise Partnerships, when it is established in 2015.

The project has already been picked out as a priority by the Local Enterprise Partnership for the area.

Chiefs estimate £5million will be required for each scheme and, if the funding bids go smoothly, work could start in 2015.

Tony Cox, the Tory councillor responsible for transport, said: “We said we would still pursue these improvements when we finished the Better Southend scheme, and I am pleased to say that is still the case.

“We can get ourselves ahead of the game so that, when Government funding does become available, we are well placed to take advantage.”

Comments (65)

4:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:06pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Nebs says...

Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.
Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only. Nebs

4:21pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

That's grand news, especially for the Airport's proposed expansion plans....
That's grand news, especially for the Airport's proposed expansion plans.... Carnabackable

4:36pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mys842 says...

Make the roads three lanes! give us the motorway we so desperately need.
Make the roads three lanes! give us the motorway we so desperately need. mys842

4:40pm Thu 10 Jan 13

disgusted of essex says...

This is at best best a stop gap measure that will be to late when/if it is delivered. The only real solution is an outer ring road which was suggested many years ago.
This is at best best a stop gap measure that will be to late when/if it is delivered. The only real solution is an outer ring road which was suggested many years ago. disgusted of essex

4:41pm Thu 10 Jan 13

hesmrknowitall says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :) hesmrknowitall

4:49pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mys842 says...

hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
So where are you from then know it all? What does Shoebury have to do with anything? As it goes, I'd rather live in Shoebury (the nice parts) than most of the dumps in South Essex!
[quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]So where are you from then know it all? What does Shoebury have to do with anything? As it goes, I'd rather live in Shoebury (the nice parts) than most of the dumps in South Essex! mys842

4:55pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
[quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities? Shoebury_Cyclist

4:55pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

I live in Rayleigh, considered by many to be the Jewel in the crown........
I live in Rayleigh, considered by many to be the Jewel in the crown........ Carnabackable

5:00pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Here, learn something:

http://www.racfounda
tion.org/assets/rac_
foundation/content/d
ownloadables/on_the_
move-le_vine_&_jones
-dec2012.pdf

It's called 'peak car', and it's here, now.
Here, learn something: http://www.racfounda tion.org/assets/rac_ foundation/content/d ownloadables/on_the_ move-le_vine_&_jones -dec2012.pdf It's called 'peak car', and it's here, now. Shoebury_Cyclist

5:05pm Thu 10 Jan 13

bigmak says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares!
If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?[/p][/quote]A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares! If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at. bigmak

5:45pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

bigmak wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares!
If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.
I back up my argument with references and proof.

If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory.
[quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?[/p][/quote]A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares! If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.[/p][/quote]I back up my argument with references and proof. If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory. Shoebury_Cyclist

5:55pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

bigmak wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares!
If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.
It is very clear when people have lost an argument, because they switch from the topic and instead attack those who have won the argument.
[quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?[/p][/quote]A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares! If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.[/p][/quote]It is very clear when people have lost an argument, because they switch from the topic and instead attack those who have won the argument. Shoebury_Cyclist

6:05pm Thu 10 Jan 13

soul man says...

no doubt they will do every junction at the same time
no doubt they will do every junction at the same time soul man

6:06pm Thu 10 Jan 13

mark-986 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
bigmak wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares!
If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.
I back up my argument with references and proof.

If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory.
o look another post about shoebury cyclist. why do you lot keep giving him this attention don't reply to his comments for gods sake. fed up seeing all his rubbish on here!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?[/p][/quote]A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares! If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.[/p][/quote]I back up my argument with references and proof. If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory.[/p][/quote]o look another post about shoebury cyclist. why do you lot keep giving him this attention don't reply to his comments for gods sake. fed up seeing all his rubbish on here! mark-986

6:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

bigmak says...

Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left!
Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left! bigmak

6:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

waterbaby74 says...

I love the caveats with every article to do with Southend Borough Council actually planning to spend some money or improving the town! "improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years"
3 YEARS?! We need improvements to these junctions NOW! And dont even get me started on the Victoria Circus junction.
I love the caveats with every article to do with Southend Borough Council actually planning to spend some money or improving the town! "improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years" 3 YEARS?! We need improvements to these junctions NOW! And dont even get me started on the Victoria Circus junction. waterbaby74

6:52pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

So people moan that these junctions get snarled up and when plans are announced to try and tackle the problem they moan...

How fickle the fickle can be.
So people moan that these junctions get snarled up and when plans are announced to try and tackle the problem they moan... How fickle the fickle can be. Max Impact

7:27pm Thu 10 Jan 13

GrumpyofLeigh says...

How is it that "moving" businesses to the airport area will "create" thousands of jobs?
Is it suggested that there are firms on industrial estates in, say, Rayleigh Hockley and Benfleet that are GAGGING to invest and expand but cannot do so due to physical constraints?
There's a nice thought but...
How is it that "moving" businesses to the airport area will "create" thousands of jobs? Is it suggested that there are firms on industrial estates in, say, Rayleigh Hockley and Benfleet that are GAGGING to invest and expand but cannot do so due to physical constraints? There's a nice thought but... GrumpyofLeigh

8:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

jolllyboy says...

Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass.
Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass. jolllyboy

8:34pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass.
Better to try and create jobs than not bother.

I take it you are aginst these roadworks should they go ahead, if so I take it you will not use them is/once complete.

I would like to ask you about something else:

On the "Southend needs new shopping district, say planners" story of Friday 4th January 2013.

You commented:

"jolllyboy says...
5:15pm Sat 5 Jan 13

This council will do anything to get money to pay their bonus'. If enough 'incentive' payments are given I feel the council will change their minds ! It is legalised bribery. Anyone who thinks a Retail Park so far to the end of the town as Fossetts Farm is a good idea (and I am sure all those in shoebury would like it) are living in cloud cuckoo land. it would be easier to go in the other direction out of town. As for the Airport Retail park is is always very busy but I expect there is a hidden agenda there as well.......think about it.”

Dispite my requests you have failed to tell us of this "hidden agenda" you elude too is it not about time you let us in on this "hidden agenda" that only you seem to know about.
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass.[/p][/quote]Better to try and create jobs than not bother. I take it you are aginst these roadworks should they go ahead, if so I take it you will not use them is/once complete. I would like to ask you about something else: On the "Southend needs new shopping district, say planners" story of Friday 4th January 2013. You commented: "jolllyboy says... 5:15pm Sat 5 Jan 13 This council will do anything to get money to pay their bonus'. If enough 'incentive' payments are given I feel the council will change their minds ! It is legalised bribery. Anyone who thinks a Retail Park so far to the end of the town as Fossetts Farm is a good idea (and I am sure all those in shoebury would like it) are living in cloud cuckoo land. it would be easier to go in the other direction out of town. As for the Airport Retail park is is always very busy but I expect there is a hidden agenda there as well.......think about it.” Dispite my requests you have failed to tell us of this "hidden agenda" you elude too is it not about time you let us in on this "hidden agenda" that only you seem to know about. Max Impact

9:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

asbo. just the truth says...

Carnabackable wrote:
I live in Rayleigh, considered by many to be the Jewel in the crown........
jewel in crown or the stool that won't drown
[quote][p][bold]Carnabackable[/bold] wrote: I live in Rayleigh, considered by many to be the Jewel in the crown........[/p][/quote]jewel in crown or the stool that won't drown asbo. just the truth

9:17pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

How far will £15m go?
How far will £15m go? Keptquiettillnow

10:52pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

bigmak wrote:
Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left!
That leaves the wishywashy promise breaking, lying LibDems or the wacko nutjob monster raving UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left![/p][/quote]That leaves the wishywashy promise breaking, lying LibDems or the wacko nutjob monster raving UKIP. Shoebury_Cyclist

11:21pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
bigmak wrote:
Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left!
That leaves the wishywashy promise breaking, lying LibDems or the wacko nutjob monster raving UKIP.
Might have voted Indi.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: Sorry but need to answer, I have never voted Tory in my life! But neither have I voted for the loony left![/p][/quote]That leaves the wishywashy promise breaking, lying LibDems or the wacko nutjob monster raving UKIP.[/p][/quote]Might have voted Indi. Max Impact

1:11am Fri 11 Jan 13

Brunning999 says...

Okay so ShCy what are you actually saying ?

Lets stop and stand still, tread water?

I do not believe that even in a socialist republic we could afford to tread water!

Any public improvement of amenities has to be a good thing surely, or are you suggesting we follow the Soviet route and let everything fall apart before we do anything?

Any improvement in our town helps and is welcome.
Okay so ShCy what are you actually saying ? Lets stop and stand still, tread water? I do not believe that even in a socialist republic we could afford to tread water! Any public improvement of amenities has to be a good thing surely, or are you suggesting we follow the Soviet route and let everything fall apart before we do anything? Any improvement in our town helps and is welcome. Brunning999

6:52am Fri 11 Jan 13

Nebs says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
How far will £15m go?
Based on a normal council contract we should get about £5m worth of work out of it.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: How far will £15m go?[/p][/quote]Based on a normal council contract we should get about £5m worth of work out of it. Nebs

7:21am Fri 11 Jan 13

notinwestcliffanymore says...

Any ideas what can be done at these junctions, given that they are 'hemmed' in compared to progress road. 5 million is not going to get you a flyover or underpass. In fact thats less than the price banneded around to remove the F O W roundabout.
Any ideas what can be done at these junctions, given that they are 'hemmed' in compared to progress road. 5 million is not going to get you a flyover or underpass. In fact thats less than the price banneded around to remove the F O W roundabout. notinwestcliffanymore

8:19am Fri 11 Jan 13

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd says...

Considering that the 'Tesco' Junction is a fairly recent development just proves what a failure SBC's transport infrastructure has delivered again!
You all know what's gonna happen there dont you?...
In keeping with SBC's commitment to abolish free flowing roundabouts we'll end up with pollution creating traffic lights!
I can forsee this ending up a bigger nightmare than the Vic Gateway failure!
Considering that the 'Tesco' Junction is a fairly recent development just proves what a failure SBC's transport infrastructure has delivered again! You all know what's gonna happen there dont you?... In keeping with SBC's commitment to abolish free flowing roundabouts we'll end up with pollution creating traffic lights! I can forsee this ending up a bigger nightmare than the Vic Gateway failure! Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd

9:37am Fri 11 Jan 13

sjreynolds143 says...

Nebs wrote:
Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.
Clearly you don't come from Leigh. The Bell is about the first place that I can sensibly get on to the A127 heading towards Shoebury unless you count the "no more than 3 cars at a time" lights at Bellhouse Lane (or the same at Kent Elms, come to that)
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.[/p][/quote]Clearly you don't come from Leigh. The Bell is about the first place that I can sensibly get on to the A127 heading towards Shoebury unless you count the "no more than 3 cars at a time" lights at Bellhouse Lane (or the same at Kent Elms, come to that) sjreynolds143

12:27pm Fri 11 Jan 13

rochfordfa says...

When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work!
When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work! rochfordfa

4:39pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Back in the sixties the owners of the properties south of Prince Avenue between Cockethurst Av/Bridgewater Drive and the start of the then Kent Elms Council House Estate lost a big chunk of their front gardens due to a compulsory purchase order served by the SBC. The occupants were told that this was to make way for the road widening of Prince Avenue. It did not happen then but if you look at the general layout of roads and verges east and west of Kent Elms Corner on the southside and take away that silly footbridge there is plenty of room to still widen Prince Avenue and even more if SBC were now to compulsory purchase that same row of houses that Carter built so long ago. After all there is a new set of houses now behind that row on ground where Marshalls and Kent Elms Coach works once stood. A very sad day but I am sure it will come. I feel that I am not speaking out of turn or giving the SBC planners any new ideas. It's been on the drawing board or the likes of since the 60s and I have a long memory.
Back in the sixties the owners of the properties south of Prince Avenue between Cockethurst Av/Bridgewater Drive and the start of the then Kent Elms Council House Estate lost a big chunk of their front gardens due to a compulsory purchase order served by the SBC. The occupants were told that this was to make way for the road widening of Prince Avenue. It did not happen then but if you look at the general layout of roads and verges east and west of Kent Elms Corner on the southside and take away that silly footbridge there is plenty of room to still widen Prince Avenue and even more if SBC were now to compulsory purchase that same row of houses that Carter built so long ago. After all there is a new set of houses now behind that row on ground where Marshalls and Kent Elms Coach works once stood. A very sad day but I am sure it will come. I feel that I am not speaking out of turn or giving the SBC planners any new ideas. It's been on the drawing board or the likes of since the 60s and I have a long memory. Broadwaywatch

5:30pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd wrote:
Considering that the 'Tesco' Junction is a fairly recent development just proves what a failure SBC's transport infrastructure has delivered again!
You all know what's gonna happen there dont you?...
In keeping with SBC's commitment to abolish free flowing roundabouts we'll end up with pollution creating traffic lights!
I can forsee this ending up a bigger nightmare than the Vic Gateway failure!
Yesterday I was waiting for a bus at the so called Victoria Gateway, Where that name comes from goodness knows. such names as gateways normally derive from and belong to Medieval walled City's
However, who in names sake decided to place the Bus shelters where they are so that when the traffic stops for the long periods it dos Those standing waiting for a bus are subject to the toxic exhaust fumes of stationary vehicles?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd[/bold] wrote: Considering that the 'Tesco' Junction is a fairly recent development just proves what a failure SBC's transport infrastructure has delivered again! You all know what's gonna happen there dont you?... In keeping with SBC's commitment to abolish free flowing roundabouts we'll end up with pollution creating traffic lights! I can forsee this ending up a bigger nightmare than the Vic Gateway failure![/p][/quote]Yesterday I was waiting for a bus at the so called Victoria Gateway, Where that name comes from goodness knows. such names as gateways normally derive from and belong to Medieval walled City's However, who in names sake decided to place the Bus shelters where they are so that when the traffic stops for the long periods it dos Those standing waiting for a bus are subject to the toxic exhaust fumes of stationary vehicles? Broadwaywatch

9:12pm Fri 11 Jan 13

southend_Dave says...

Nebs wrote:
Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.
Yeah great idea. So anyone coming home from london wanting to get to the massive area serviced by Hoblythick Avenue will do what exactly ?

All turn off at the tiny slip road before tescos which is already overspilling now and then add traffic to the back roads, including Earls Hall School and the Hospital.

Would be a nightmare.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.[/p][/quote]Yeah great idea. So anyone coming home from london wanting to get to the massive area serviced by Hoblythick Avenue will do what exactly ? All turn off at the tiny slip road before tescos which is already overspilling now and then add traffic to the back roads, including Earls Hall School and the Hospital. Would be a nightmare. southend_Dave

9:55pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Southend65 says...

As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions.

Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in.

Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?
As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles? Southend65

10:49am Sat 12 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Why is it that this artical has now been put on the back shelf by the Echo where as others with less comments stay up front on the main page for longer. It all seems very selective.
Why is it that this artical has now been put on the back shelf by the Echo where as others with less comments stay up front on the main page for longer. It all seems very selective. Broadwaywatch

12:52pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

rochfordfa wrote:
When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work!
The problem isn't bottlenecks, the problem is a failed national transport policy.
[quote][p][bold]rochfordfa[/bold] wrote: When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work![/p][/quote]The problem isn't bottlenecks, the problem is a failed national transport policy. Shoebury_Cyclist

6:17pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Why not make it even more simple, if you have any sort of driving crime, speeding, drink driving, no tax, no insurance or even a parking ticket you are banned from driving for life, if you are found behind the wheel chop off the left arm, and remove any and all benifits they might be on.

TFIC
Why not make it even more simple, if you have any sort of driving crime, speeding, drink driving, no tax, no insurance or even a parking ticket you are banned from driving for life, if you are found behind the wheel chop off the left arm, and remove any and all benifits they might be on. TFIC Max Impact

7:26pm Sat 12 Jan 13

kev1956in says...

waterbaby74 wrote:
I love the caveats with every article to do with Southend Borough Council actually planning to spend some money or improving the town! "improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years"
3 YEARS?! We need improvements to these junctions NOW! And dont even get me started on the Victoria Circus junction.
"improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years" maybe the contractors they intend to use are the ones doing Sadlers Farm. It might be finished in time to start the Southend work.
[quote][p][bold]waterbaby74[/bold] wrote: I love the caveats with every article to do with Southend Borough Council actually planning to spend some money or improving the town! "improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years" 3 YEARS?! We need improvements to these junctions NOW! And dont even get me started on the Victoria Circus junction.[/p][/quote]"improvements which COULD get underway within 3 years" maybe the contractors they intend to use are the ones doing Sadlers Farm. It might be finished in time to start the Southend work. kev1956in

7:41pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

Once the airport is running to capacity, these roadworks, will pail into insignificance...
Once the airport is running to capacity, these roadworks, will pail into insignificance... Carnabackable

12:46am Sun 13 Jan 13

southchurch bob says...

mys842 wrote:
Make the roads three lanes! give us the motorway we so desperately need.
How?
[quote][p][bold]mys842[/bold] wrote: Make the roads three lanes! give us the motorway we so desperately need.[/p][/quote]How? southchurch bob

10:43am Sun 13 Jan 13

Nebs says...

southend_Dave wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.
Yeah great idea. So anyone coming home from london wanting to get to the massive area serviced by Hoblythick Avenue will do what exactly ?

All turn off at the tiny slip road before tescos which is already overspilling now and then add traffic to the back roads, including Earls Hall School and the Hospital.

Would be a nightmare.
On that particular right turn the lights let about twenty cars through, and then you have to wait ages for the next lot. Coming home from work the school will already have finished for the day. No problem, they can turn off where you suggest, or any of the turns from The Fairway onwards. Blenheim Chase and Prittlewell Chase are underused, and those further south can use Fairfax Drive.
[quote][p][bold]southend_Dave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: Simple solution at the Bell is to stop all right turns from all lanes. Ahead or Left only.[/p][/quote]Yeah great idea. So anyone coming home from london wanting to get to the massive area serviced by Hoblythick Avenue will do what exactly ? All turn off at the tiny slip road before tescos which is already overspilling now and then add traffic to the back roads, including Earls Hall School and the Hospital. Would be a nightmare.[/p][/quote]On that particular right turn the lights let about twenty cars through, and then you have to wait ages for the next lot. Coming home from work the school will already have finished for the day. No problem, they can turn off where you suggest, or any of the turns from The Fairway onwards. Blenheim Chase and Prittlewell Chase are underused, and those further south can use Fairfax Drive. Nebs

4:33pm Sun 13 Jan 13

BASILBRUSH says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass.
Has it jolllyboy?
So where is you proof if this? I haven't noticed any difference in traffic since the Runway extension. Cuckoo corner is far better now also.
If they can improve the Bell and Tesco roundabout, in turn reduce congestion in the area and increase the desirability to new business then great news... What are people whinging about?

Oh yes, they want to live in the past....
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Moving businesses to the airport area may create thousands of Jobs (may ! debateable !- when !) but having the airport has created a nightmare traffic problem and if the airport gains further passengers so will the bottlenecks on the roads. This was the arguement right at the start ! and it has come to pass.[/p][/quote]Has it jolllyboy? So where is you proof if this? I haven't noticed any difference in traffic since the Runway extension. Cuckoo corner is far better now also. If they can improve the Bell and Tesco roundabout, in turn reduce congestion in the area and increase the desirability to new business then great news... What are people whinging about? Oh yes, they want to live in the past.... BASILBRUSH

5:44pm Sun 13 Jan 13

shoebury52 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used shoebury52

8:12pm Sun 13 Jan 13

BASILBRUSH says...

shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
I agree... The cycle paths along the A127 which were recently resurfaced are never used!
I'm all for more cycle lanes, but I have never seen anyone on those.
The reason the needed resurfacing was more likely due to the under use and nature reclaiming them.
You could get a third lane out of those. ;)
[quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]I agree... The cycle paths along the A127 which were recently resurfaced are never used! I'm all for more cycle lanes, but I have never seen anyone on those. The reason the needed resurfacing was more likely due to the under use and nature reclaiming them. You could get a third lane out of those. ;) BASILBRUSH

10:31pm Sun 13 Jan 13

beppo1 says...

Would be nice just to have a pedestrian crossing at Kent Elms corner.Not everyone can 'climb' that bridge!
Would be nice just to have a pedestrian crossing at Kent Elms corner.Not everyone can 'climb' that bridge! beppo1

9:20am Mon 14 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Back in the sixties the owners of the properties south of Prince Avenue between Cockethurst Av/Bridgewater Drive and the start of the then Kent Elms Council House Estate lost a big chunk of their front gardens due to a compulsory purchase order served by the SBC. The occupants were told that this was to make way for the road widening of Prince Avenue. It did not happen then but if you look at the general layout of roads and verges east and west of Kent Elms Corner on the southside and take away that silly footbridge there is plenty of room to still widen Prince Avenue and even more if SBC were now to compulsory purchase that same row of houses that Carter built so long ago. After all there is a new set of houses now behind that row on ground where Marshalls and Kent Elms Coach works once stood. A very sad day but I am sure it will come. I feel that I am not speaking out of turn or giving the SBC planners any new ideas. It's been on the drawing board or the likes of since the 60s and I have a long memory.”
Back in the sixties the owners of the properties south of Prince Avenue between Cockethurst Av/Bridgewater Drive and the start of the then Kent Elms Council House Estate lost a big chunk of their front gardens due to a compulsory purchase order served by the SBC. The occupants were told that this was to make way for the road widening of Prince Avenue. It did not happen then but if you look at the general layout of roads and verges east and west of Kent Elms Corner on the southside and take away that silly footbridge there is plenty of room to still widen Prince Avenue and even more if SBC were now to compulsory purchase that same row of houses that Carter built so long ago. After all there is a new set of houses now behind that row on ground where Marshalls and Kent Elms Coach works once stood. A very sad day but I am sure it will come. I feel that I am not speaking out of turn or giving the SBC planners any new ideas. It's been on the drawing board or the likes of since the 60s and I have a long memory.” Broadwaywatch

9:22am Mon 14 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

sorry....did'nt mean to post that again......so much for memory....It short memory it would seem I haver trouble with
sorry....did'nt mean to post that again......so much for memory....It short memory it would seem I haver trouble with Broadwaywatch

2:58pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
http://www.economist
.com/node/21563280

From that article:

"Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."
[quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium." Shoebury_Cyclist

5:13pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Rouge9 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."
Car use may be faling, car ownership is still on the climb. Two different ways to look at the same information.

Taking a quote out of context like that doesn't really work. Recession/fuel costs/speed cameras/insurance increases have all affected how we use the automobile. On the whole, as a study, we use our cars more at certain times of day. Our road infrastructure cannot cope with the increased demand at these peak times.

The article you have quoted is true for one person, from a certain point of view
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."[/p][/quote]Car use may be faling, car ownership is still on the climb. Two different ways to look at the same information. Taking a quote out of context like that doesn't really work. Recession/fuel costs/speed cameras/insurance increases have all affected how we use the automobile. On the whole, as a study, we use our cars more at certain times of day. Our road infrastructure cannot cope with the increased demand at these peak times. The article you have quoted is true for one person, from a certain point of view Rouge9

5:17pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Rouge9 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."
Just to emphasise what i mean about selective quoting, from the end of the article:

"Roads are far from empty. In many countries traffic levels have continued rising because population growth has compensated for declining distances driven per person. On many roads peak-time congestion will be a problem demography cannot defuse."
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."[/p][/quote]Just to emphasise what i mean about selective quoting, from the end of the article: "Roads are far from empty. In many countries traffic levels have continued rising because population growth has compensated for declining distances driven per person. On many roads peak-time congestion will be a problem demography cannot defuse." Rouge9

5:22pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Rouge9 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."
Just to emphasise what i mean about selective quoting, from the end of the article:

"Roads are far from empty. In many countries traffic levels have continued rising because population growth has compensated for declining distances driven per person. On many roads peak-time congestion will be a problem demography cannot defuse."
I quoted the relevant section, about the UK. Unless you think Southend Council is build road junctions in other countries?
[quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."[/p][/quote]Just to emphasise what i mean about selective quoting, from the end of the article: "Roads are far from empty. In many countries traffic levels have continued rising because population growth has compensated for declining distances driven per person. On many roads peak-time congestion will be a problem demography cannot defuse."[/p][/quote]I quoted the relevant section, about the UK. Unless you think Southend Council is build road junctions in other countries? Shoebury_Cyclist

5:23pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Rouge9 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
shoebury52 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used
http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."
Car use may be faling, car ownership is still on the climb. Two different ways to look at the same information.

Taking a quote out of context like that doesn't really work. Recession/fuel costs/speed cameras/insurance increases have all affected how we use the automobile. On the whole, as a study, we use our cars more at certain times of day. Our road infrastructure cannot cope with the increased demand at these peak times.

The article you have quoted is true for one person, from a certain point of view
That study is talking about pre-recession figures.
[quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoebury52[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]Yawn. I really don't think car numbers are falling that much. Think the cycle paths they have put in along the side of the a127 going up to progress has been a waste of money never seen them used[/p][/quote]http://www.economist .com/node/21563280 From that article: "Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s. Pre-recession declines in per-person travel were also recorded in France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Belgium."[/p][/quote]Car use may be faling, car ownership is still on the climb. Two different ways to look at the same information. Taking a quote out of context like that doesn't really work. Recession/fuel costs/speed cameras/insurance increases have all affected how we use the automobile. On the whole, as a study, we use our cars more at certain times of day. Our road infrastructure cannot cope with the increased demand at these peak times. The article you have quoted is true for one person, from a certain point of view[/p][/quote]That study is talking about pre-recession figures. Shoebury_Cyclist

3:08pm Tue 15 Jan 13

r6keith says...

Southend65 wrote:
As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?
I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed.
[quote][p][bold]Southend65[/bold] wrote: As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?[/p][/quote]I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed. r6keith

3:21pm Tue 15 Jan 13

r6keith says...

I know the flow at Cuckoo Corner has improved but as I live in this area I still feel that most of the tail backs stem from the Cuckoo Corner area,when busy the log jam goes from there through the Bell lights towards the Tesco roundabout. Even though i think the Bell could be improved wheres it going to go if theres no room already , We need a relief road thats takes all these junctions out of the equation so the traffic going further to Thorpe Bay and beyond can just give it a wide berth.
I know the flow at Cuckoo Corner has improved but as I live in this area I still feel that most of the tail backs stem from the Cuckoo Corner area,when busy the log jam goes from there through the Bell lights towards the Tesco roundabout. Even though i think the Bell could be improved wheres it going to go if theres no room already , We need a relief road thats takes all these junctions out of the equation so the traffic going further to Thorpe Bay and beyond can just give it a wide berth. r6keith

3:41pm Tue 15 Jan 13

woolstone says...

We now have an extended airport but not the roads to take the traffic around this area. It has always been bad on the A127 for years, so why wait till after the extension before you improve the A127 after all its not rocket science.
We now have an extended airport but not the roads to take the traffic around this area. It has always been bad on the A127 for years, so why wait till after the extension before you improve the A127 after all its not rocket science. woolstone

4:01pm Tue 15 Jan 13

J_blond says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
rochfordfa wrote: When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work!
The problem isn't bottlenecks, the problem is a failed national transport policy.
Could you provide your evidence of this?

I do think, I hate to say, that you are someone who believes everything he reads. Your other quote about falling car use may be correct, but what it doesn't state is why it's falling - due to cost, or better public transport? Either way, it doesn't suggest that the numbers will not rise again...

I seem to recall you said you drive as well?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rochfordfa[/bold] wrote: When they improved the Rayleigh Weir and dug the underpass it was to reduce the bottle neck at the old Rayleigh Weir roundabout. What did it do? Send the congestion to Progress Road. Now that Progress Road has been developed to reduce congestion what do the need to do? Develop Kent Elms, Tesco and the Bell to reduce the bottle neck's there. Can anyone else see the problem? The newly improved Prince Ave/Victoria Ave junction will be the new bottle neck and need more work![/p][/quote]The problem isn't bottlenecks, the problem is a failed national transport policy.[/p][/quote]Could you provide your evidence of this? I do think, I hate to say, that you are someone who believes everything he reads. Your other quote about falling car use may be correct, but what it doesn't state is why it's falling - due to cost, or better public transport? Either way, it doesn't suggest that the numbers will not rise again... I seem to recall you said you drive as well? J_blond

6:17pm Tue 15 Jan 13

John T Pharro says...

mark-986 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
bigmak wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
hesmrknowitall wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.
So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more!

A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)
Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?
A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares!
If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.
I back up my argument with references and proof.

If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory.
o look another post about shoebury cyclist. why do you lot keep giving him this attention don't reply to his comments for gods sake. fed up seeing all his rubbish on here!
I agree he/she is the first to resort to complaining that insults means you have lost the argument, but calls people who don't agree with him/her ( usually the majority) "thick" when they disagree with him/her. He/she really has a problem. Problem is agreeing with you will bring on another deluge of bile. SORRY!!
[quote][p][bold]mark-986[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hesmrknowitall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Car use is falling yet still councils follow these blinkered and monumentally expensive policies.[/p][/quote]So you're from Shoebury and you ride a bike. Well thats 2 reasons for me to dislike you already, keep posting comments and I'm sure there will be a whole load more! A word of advice also: If you are going to post nonesensicle crap, at least do some research before hand, just to see whether you are posting fact or your normal fiction :)[/p][/quote]Got anything intelligent to add to the discussion on the topic at hand, or are you just here to spout inanities?[/p][/quote]A lot of us who live in Shoebury disagree with his spouts and think that the Shoebury Cyclist is a left wing dinosaur with little knowledge of the real world. He'll no doubt now reply by giving us all an obscure website address that verifies what he says whilst ignoring the fact that nobody here votes for his views, or cares! If he travelled to the former Eastern Bloc as I do, he would find his old-Soviet style ideology is laughed at.[/p][/quote]I back up my argument with references and proof. If you are not intelligent enough to comprehend that, that's your problem. It also explains why you vote tory.[/p][/quote]o look another post about shoebury cyclist. why do you lot keep giving him this attention don't reply to his comments for gods sake. fed up seeing all his rubbish on here![/p][/quote]I agree he/she is the first to resort to complaining that insults means you have lost the argument, but calls people who don't agree with him/her ( usually the majority) "thick" when they disagree with him/her. He/she really has a problem. Problem is agreeing with you will bring on another deluge of bile. SORRY!! John T Pharro

10:45pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Southend65 says...

r6keith wrote:
Southend65 wrote:
As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?
I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed.
The joke is that the Council had the ideal opportunity to further extend the right hand slip at the Bell a couple of years ago when they replaced the barriers on the central reservation.*

Each time I'm queuing in the outside lane waiting for traffic in front of me to move forwards, so that I can then get in the right hand turn lane, I look across at the unused space on the central reservation and get really miffed.

Can only think I've had the sudden onset of middle-age to be thinking about these sorts of things :3)

I also do not understand why there are traffic lights on each road hitting Cuckoo Corner with the exception of Manners Way.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Southend65[/bold] wrote: As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?[/p][/quote]I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed.[/p][/quote]The joke is that the Council had the ideal opportunity to further extend the right hand slip at the Bell a couple of years ago when they replaced the barriers on the central reservation.* Each time I'm queuing in the outside lane waiting for traffic in front of me to move forwards, so that I can then get in the right hand turn lane, I look across at the unused space on the central reservation and get really miffed. Can only think I've had the sudden onset of middle-age to be thinking about these sorts of things :3) I also do not understand why there are traffic lights on each road hitting Cuckoo Corner with the exception of Manners Way. Southend65

10:48pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Southend65 says...

r6keith wrote:
Southend65 wrote:
As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?
I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed.
Same issue occurs at Kent Elms and also on the Tesco right hand lane, but lights do not appear to been adjusted there.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Southend65[/bold] wrote: As a daily commuter from Southend to Brentwood, I find that the biggest delays are caused by traffic blocking the main carriageways as they queue to turn right at these junctions. Vehicles attempting to go straight on at these junctions then dive into the inside lane and cause other vehicles to slow to allow them in. Isn't the simplest solution to extend the length of the right hand filter lanes at these junctions so that they can accommodate more queueing vehicles?[/p][/quote]I access my home by turning right at the Bell coming into Southend .Since they changed the light sequence for the right filter to the end of the green run into Southend more drivers can make the filter turn , but I agree a much longer filter lane with the filter green at the begining of the sequence would I think let this junction run smoother.As for the right filter coming out of Southend for the few cars that use it, get rid of it and there are other ways to get to the same areas like via Manners Way which you have just passed.[/p][/quote]Same issue occurs at Kent Elms and also on the Tesco right hand lane, but lights do not appear to been adjusted there. Southend65

9:39am Wed 16 Jan 13

Nebs says...

The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush.
Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.
The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush. Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares. Nebs

9:42am Wed 16 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Nebs wrote:
The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush.
Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.
In other words: renationalise public transport.

I would also add, put freight back on the rail network.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush. Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.[/p][/quote]In other words: renationalise public transport. I would also add, put freight back on the rail network. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:37pm Wed 16 Jan 13

JessyJar says...

brilliant more digging and traffic there then... look forward to that!
brilliant more digging and traffic there then... look forward to that! JessyJar

6:17pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Nebs wrote:
The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush.
Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.
In other words: renationalise public transport.

I would also add, put freight back on the rail network.
Canals are the place for a lot of freight. We should be building a nationwide connected system of canals that will serve many purposes including freight, boating for a hobby or holiday, and moving water around the country.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush. Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.[/p][/quote]In other words: renationalise public transport. I would also add, put freight back on the rail network.[/p][/quote]Canals are the place for a lot of freight. We should be building a nationwide connected system of canals that will serve many purposes including freight, boating for a hobby or holiday, and moving water around the country. Nebs

8:08pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Nebs wrote:
The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush.
Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.
In other words: renationalise public transport.

I would also add, put freight back on the rail network.
Canals are the place for a lot of freight. We should be building a nationwide connected system of canals that will serve many purposes including freight, boating for a hobby or holiday, and moving water around the country.
We already have that network of canals, we just need to utilise it.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: The congestion problem at peak hours will just get worse and worse. Instead of juggling with the junctions we need to look at the car users, and change their driving times. Go back 50 years and standard hours were 9 to 5, imagine if everyone stopped work at 5pm now, but we have flexitime and part time working that spreads the load. Well now the load needs to be spread a bit thinner. How about the local council opening all their departments on a saturday, when people who work during the week can actually get in to use them, so as the staff travel would be spread over 6 days instead of 5. Same for other government departments. And extend flexible working by keeping the offices open longer, which would allow staff to arrive much earlier before the morning rush and go home before the evening rush, or arrive after the morning rush and go home after the evening rush. Make all public transport free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation, it is already subsidised by about a third so when you buy a £10 train ticket is actually costs the rail companies about £15 to transport you and the other £5 comes from the government subsidy. Treble the government subsidy and scrap fares.[/p][/quote]In other words: renationalise public transport. I would also add, put freight back on the rail network.[/p][/quote]Canals are the place for a lot of freight. We should be building a nationwide connected system of canals that will serve many purposes including freight, boating for a hobby or holiday, and moving water around the country.[/p][/quote]We already have that network of canals, we just need to utilise it. Shoebury_Cyclist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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