Ball rolling for £15million overhaul of A127 junctions (From Echo)

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

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 :)

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 :)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
How far will £15m go?

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

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!

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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."

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."

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."

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.