B3006 Liss to Alton and Selborne Traffic Action Group
John McCabe
Roundabout on the A3 at Liss, to Alton (and the A31). The reason I
mention it is to find out whether anyone who does use it is aware of
the activities of the Selborne Traffic Action Group.
Selborne is a small village roughly half way between Liss and Alton on
the B3006. It has a population of around 600 I believe. A group known
as Selborne Traffic Action Group (STAG) has been formed to put
pressure on local government to install traffic calming measures in
the village, on the (invalid) grounds that speed is a problem through
the village. I have had the chance to study injury accidents on this
road over the last 10 yrs and speed is pretty much irrelevant to
accidents happening *within* the village. It is pretty clear that the
locals want to reduce the amount of traffic going through the village.
The idealistic view of this is that it is to improve the environment,
the cynical view is that it is to improve property values!
As anyone who knows this road, the section through Selborne is very
narrow and huge tailbacks can occur just by someone parking outside
the shop on the main street, so traffic calming within the village
will cause tailbacks like this every day!
For the record, it is said that over 800 vehicles per hour pass
through Selborne at peak times (i.e. at least 1.33x the population!).
It is clear therefore that the B3006 is a more major route than its
designation suggests.
It is clear that, if the minority group called STAG gets its way, it
will inconvenience far more people than it will benefit. The point of
this message is therefore to try to bring the activities of STAG to
the attention of the users of the B3006 in the hope that we can
prevent STAG from getting it's way, or find some other alternative
solution to the obvious problem of overuse on this section of road
(i.e. a bypass!).
Thanks
John
Best Regards
John McCabe <jo...@assen.demon.co.uk>
John McCabe
http://www.hants.gov.uk/scrmxn/c3473.html
http://www.hants.gov.uk/scrmxn/c15832.html
Mark Scott
Hill, Empshott. It always was a busy road, as far as I can tell was and is
used by many as a part of a NW-SE diagonal cross-route from the Midlands and
West down to the south coast -- Chichester, Shoreham, Brighton etc.
Fortunately for those who still live there, there has been a lorry ban
imposed since we left. There has also been some traffic calming done in
Selborne, but I hadn't heard the residents were up for more of it. I do
have sympathy for them though. In the space of three years, we had our
front garden fence demolished twice by cars or vans coming off the road.
And I lost count of the times we or neighbours called out rescue services to
cars that had spun off or hit trees up the hill from us.
I don't think it's valid to criticise the residents' desire to see traffic
volumes restricted by implying that they are cynically seeking to increase
their property values -- it is not pleasant living right on a busy through
route that's carrying far more traffic than it was ever meant to. The area
around Selborne is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so even if there
was any money or inclination on the part of government to invest in a
bypass, the chances of getting one for Selborne through the planning process
must be close to zero.
The residents are just using whatever levers they have to make the route
less attractive to the mass of long-distance through traffic which has no
business using it. "B" roads should surely be mainly for local traffic?
Mudge
Mark Scott wrote in message <9tem6j$let$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
And I'm sure you'd find the vast majority of vehicles travelling through
Selborne are doing local journeys (primarily commuting or school runs)
rather than long cross-country journeys. Who apart from people like me plan
200-mile journeys primarily on non-trunk A and B roads wherever possible?
I think the problem here is that the Selborne activists are just trying to
shift the problem into someone else's backyard.
--
Peter
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
(Edmund Burke)
John McCabe
>I used to live on the B3006, not at Selborne but further down at Stairs
>Hill, Empshott.
If any part of that road needs action taken, it is Stairs Hill. I've
seen numerous accidents at or near there. The fact is that there is no
way Empshott should have anything in excess of a 40mph limit, yet that
stretch of road is NSL! (The other particulary dangerous part is the
Roundhouse Crossroads, about 2 miles NW of Selborne)
>Fortunately for those who still live there, there has been a lorry ban
>imposed since we left.
It's been a while then - the first link in my 2nd message is regarding
the lorry ban, imposed in around 1990 I believe. Despite the lorry ban
there are a few buses and agricultural vehicles that use that route
and often cause havoc, particularly because the buses are too wide for
the road and can hardly manage to get up Stairs Hill!
>There has also been some traffic calming done in Selborne,
Err - yes and, if you examine the accident statistics for the last 10
years, you'll find that the incidence of accidents *at the site* of
the traffic calming (especially Goslings Croft on the Alton side) has
increased without affecting the incidence of accidents within the
village!
>but I hadn't heard the residents were up for more of it.
Coverage has been paid in the local paper. One of their bright ideas
was to campaign for the exit from the A3 to be closed, but I think
that was shelved after complaints from local businesses who would go
to the wall!!
One of the other suggestions is to have a 20mph limit near the school.
Given that I've been using the road on a daily basis for the last 4
months and seen 3 schoolchildren in that time, I'm not sure how
effective this would be!
>I do have sympathy for them though. In the space of three years, we
>had ourfront garden fence demolished twice by cars or vans coming off
>the road.And I lost count of the times we or neighbours called out
>rescue services to cars that had spun off or hit trees up the hill
>from us.
Where you lived is significantly different to Selborne - it's NSL for
a start, badly signed, and has a series of deceptive bends, including
a couple of 90degree bends on a fairly steep incline. Selborne is
generally flat, albeit twisty, and is already within a 30mph limit
which, during peak periods, it is almost impossible to reach.
Besides, when I lived in Portsmouth, on a straight residential road,
with a 30mph limit, my car was crashed into twice while parked. Two
friend, while parked on the same road, had their cars written off due
to being crashed into. There are always going to be idiot drivers no
matter whether there are traffic calming measure or not. Everyone
knows that speed bumps for example are designed in such a way that
their effect at a particular speed is minimal - they need to be to
avoid hampering the emergency services too much.
>I don't think it's valid to criticise the residents' desire to see
>traffic volumes restricted by implying that they are cynically seeking
>to increase their property values -- it is not pleasant living right
>on a busy through route that's carrying far more traffic than it was
>ever meant to.
Property in Selborne is already worth more than some other local
areas, so there is always the option to move away from living on a
busy road. That is what I did when I moved away from Portsmouth. You
often have a choice of where to live - if you don't like living on a
busy road, move to somewhere where you don't live on a busy road!
>The area around Selborne is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, so even
>if there was any money or inclination on the part of government to invest
>in a bypass, the chances of getting one for Selborne through the planning
>process must be close to zero.
There is a lot of farmland round Selborne - I wouldn't call that
particularly beautiful, especially at this time of year. A bypass
needn't be anything particularly exotic, I'm not proposing a
dual-carriageway or anything like that, just a road capable of safely
carrying the amount of traffic that currently goes through Selborne.
>The residents are just using whatever levers they have to make the route
>less attractive to the mass of long-distance through traffic which has no
>business using it. "B" roads should surely be mainly for local traffic?
Liss to Alton *is* local traffic! There really is no alternative.
Alton is not even signposted at the Ham Barn Roundabout (A3) to
persuade traffic to take alternative routes. Does it work? NO. The
suggested alternatives are:
1) To Petersfield then A272 to West Meon Hut, then A32 to join A31
near Alton.
2) A325 through other side of Bordon then B3004 to Alton.
For comparison, from my house to the A31 at Alton, via the B3006 is
9.27 miles (according to AutoRoute Express). Alternative 1 is 18.0
miles - i.e. almost double the distance. Alternative 2 is 15 miles -
50% more than direct. Apart from this, both alternatives pass through
many small villages that would have to take the brunt of any traffic
that decided to avoid Selborne. What happens when they too decide they
want to reduce the amount of traffic through their villages?
Also the A325 appears to be the local government's experiment road -
any nonsensical ideas they want to try out they seem to do on the A325
- have you been through Whitehill recently? The effects of this so far
is that it takes around 25 minutes in a car just to get from my house
to the other side of Bordon - a total of around 7 miles, so averaging
16mph.
The other thing to think about is pollution - if you have a constant
stream of cars that are spending a lot of time accelerating,
decelerating and idling, the time spent when the engine is operating
most efficiently is minimal so pollution is increased by traffic
calming, without even considering the extra mileage required to avoid
it.
I appreciate your comments, but ultimately I believe the council needs
to take a close look at the B3006 and consider how best it can satisfy
both those who live along it, and the far larger group which is those
who use it on a daily basis.
Nick Finnigan
news:3bfabc56...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> For the record, it is said that over 800 vehicles per hour pass
> through Selborne at peak times (i.e. at least 1.33x the population!).
> It is clear therefore that the B3006 is a more major route than its
> designation suggests.
Looking at http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/3/31800.htm
and 409.htm for road lengths and traffic by road type:
motorways see about 80,000 motor vehicles a day;
major roads: built-up about 30,000, rural about 8,000;
minor roads about 1,500; all road types about 4,000.
So it looks like a B road to me (even if it is narrow
where a B road ought to be broad).
John McCabe
wrote:
> Looking at http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/3/31800.htm
>and 409.htm for road lengths and traffic by road type:
Presumably you mean:
http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/4/40900.htm for the
second link?
> motorways see about 80,000 motor vehicles a day;
> major roads: built-up about 30,000, rural about 8,000;
> minor roads about 1,500; all road types about 4,000.
Could you explain how you come up with these figures please?
> So it looks like a B road to me (even if it is narrow
>where a B road ought to be broad).
>
This link...
http://www.hants.gov.uk/scrmxn/c15832.html
Quotes the number of vehicles per day in 1994 as 7000. Taking account
a probable increase over the last 7 years, this would roughly fit in
with what you describe as a rural major road. Shouldn't rural major
roads be 'A' roads?
Nick Finnigan
news:3bfbae12...@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:40:12 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk>
> wrote:
> Presumably you mean:
> http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/4/40900.htm for the
> second link?
Yes, sorry about the excessive abreviation.
> > motorways see about 80,000 motor vehicles a day;
> > major roads: built-up about 30,000, rural about 8,000;
> > minor roads about 1,500; all road types about 4,000.
>
> Could you explain how you come up with these figures please?
Divide total vkm by (365 x road length), for each class.
As confirmation, there are a bit over 100 vehicles per mile
of road, and the average miles per day is a bit over 30.
> > So it looks like a B road to me (even if it is narrow
> >where a B road ought to be broad).
> >
> This link...
>
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/scrmxn/c15832.html
>
> Quotes the number of vehicles per day in 1994 as 7000. Taking account
> a probable increase over the last 7 years, this would roughly fit in
> with what you describe as a rural major road.
I hadn't expected the daily total to be that high given
the peak hour figure; yes it will be as busy as many
of the rural major roads the government surveyed.
(Although local traffic will contribute more to
'vehicles per day' than 'vkm per road km' )
> Shouldn't rural major roads be 'A' roads?
The definitions in TSGB clarify that 'major roads'
are A roads or motorways.
John McCabe
>> > motorways see about 80,000 motor vehicles a day;
>> > major roads: built-up about 30,000, rural about 8,000;
>> > minor roads about 1,500; all road types about 4,000.
>>
>> Could you explain how you come up with these figures please?
>
> Divide total vkm by (365 x road length), for each class.
>As confirmation, there are a bit over 100 vehicles per mile
>of road, and the average miles per day is a bit over 30.
I did that, but it came out nowhere near the figures you quote. To
check which set of figures you're using would you mind putting in the
full calculation for a motorway for example? Don't worry if you can't
be bothered, but it would be useful for me to know for future
reference.
Nick Finnigan
> "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> I did that, but it came out nowhere near the figures you quote. To
> check which set of figures you're using would you mind putting in the
> full calculation for a motorway for example?
(using a calculator this time...)
Total motorway traffic = 83.6 billion vehicle kilometres
Total motorway length = 3,358 kilometres.
Annual traffic on a stretch of motorway = 25 million vehicles
Daily traffic on a stretch of motorway = 68,000 vehicles.
Average time between vehicles = 1.3 seconds.
John McCabe
wrote:
>John McCabe <jo...@nospam.assend.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote:
>
>> 1) To Petersfield then A272 to West Meon Hut, then A32 to join A31
>> near Alton.
>
>They can fuck right off with that, why should people over here, have to
>put up with an increase in traffic because of a bunch of NIMBYs?
I agree - and all the more reason for as many people as possible to
keep an eye on the proceedings and object to these measures.
John McCabe
wrote:
> (using a calculator this time...)
>Total motorway traffic = 83.6 billion vehicle kilometres
>Total motorway length = 3,358 kilometres.
> Annual traffic on a stretch of motorway = 25 million vehicles
> Daily traffic on a stretch of motorway = 68,000 vehicles.
Thanks for that - this is the figure I came out with. Working the
other way from the 80000 you mentioned originally would have taken 311
days into account. When you consider holidays, weekends etc, chances
are that is probably a more accurate number for weekdays anyway.
> Average time between vehicles = 1.3 seconds.
Bloody hell!!! So whatever happened to the 2 second rule :-)
Mudge
>>Total motorway length = 3,358 kilometres.
>
>> Annual traffic on a stretch of motorway = 25 million vehicles
>> Daily traffic on a stretch of motorway = 68,000 vehicles.
>
>Thanks for that - this is the figure I came out with. Working the
>other way from the 80000 you mentioned originally would have taken 311
>days into account. When you consider holidays, weekends etc, chances
>are that is probably a more accurate number for weekdays anyway.
>
>> Average time between vehicles = 1.3 seconds.
>
>Bloody hell!!! So whatever happened to the 2 second rule :-)
There are three lanes in each direction, not one.
Chris Marshall
"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9tjg81$d6p$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Average time between vehicles = 1.3 seconds.
> >
> >Bloody hell!!! So whatever happened to the 2 second rule :-)
It went the same way as the 70mph speed limit and the official meaning of
flashing headlights :)
--
Chris Marshall
http://www.error-404.co.uk/roads
(Email spam-proofed - remove 'fingers' to reply)
Nick Finnigan
>
> > Average time between vehicles = 1.3 seconds.
>
> Bloody hell!!! So whatever happened to the 2 second rule :-)
That's for all lanes in both directions of the motorways.
John McCabe
>There are three lanes in each direction, not one.
oops - yes - of course there are!!! My only excuse for such a lapse is
that I was about to go home from work :-)