Fierce attack on Cogges link road (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Fierce attack on Cogges link road
1:23pm Tuesday 9th September 2008 in
A FIERCE attack on the planned Cogges Link Road was launched this week with thousands of leaflets dropped into homes and businesses in Witney.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is determined to enlist protesters against the county council's proposals as the public gets involved in commenting on the £15m scheme.
It said the road would simply 'dump' traffic from one bottleneck in the town to another.
And it was using the county council's own traffic forecasts drawn from a survey and report made by independent consultants.
The figures are based on flows recorded in the town in 2005, and used to draw up a 'Witney Traffic Model'. The forecast in flow changes as a result of the construction of the Cogges Link would see a dramatic drop of 57 per cent in Bridge Street — a major jam point, and the only traffic crossing over the River Windrush.
But the estimates also show that traffic flows in Station Lane (from the Ducklington Lane traffic lights to the Sainsbury's roundabout) would go up by 82 per cent.
The increase is alarming Station Lane businessman David Condon, who is also a spokesman for the West Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. He says that a survey he carried out showed that 80 per cent of the 100 plus businesses on the Station Lane industrial estate were against the Cogges Link.
"The expected increase in Station Lane traffic is not our forecast, it's the county council's own, which is worrying. The figures show that the road will have the effect of simply dumping Bridge Street traffic into Station Lane. That's no solution," he said.
"Station Lane, with all the firms down here, is a very busy end of town already. It doesn't need more traffic."
The CPRE's campaigning leaflet also highlights worries over the building of two bridges, both 26 metres long, over the two arms of the River Windrush, and the need to divert one arm into a new channel.
The county council announced four weeks ago its plans to go ahead with the Cogges Link — first put on the drawing board more than 20 years ago. It accepts there may be a public inquiry, and that, if built, the earliest it would be open would be 2012.
As part of public consultation it is holding an exhibition on the scheme at Witney's Marlborough Hotel on October 8, 3pm to 9pm, October 10, 10am to 6pm, and October 11, 10am to 1pm.
Ian Hudspeth, county cabinet member for transport, said comments — both for and against — would be received until November. A decision on the actual planning application will not be made until January next year. All comments, he assured, would be taken into account.
Mr Hudspeth said: "We have to take the overall picture.
"The figures the CPRE is using are from our own forecasts, but they are just that, forecasts."
Mr Hudspeth added: "We have to look at the overall picture, but the main thing that we noticed was that in Bridge Street, where there are 30,000 vehicle movements a day, traffic will be significantly reduced.
"There are a lot more statistics in the 'Witney Traffic Model', and I suggest you have to be careful how you use them."
The CPRE favours an alternative scheme, a four-way junction on the A40 Witney bypass at Shores Green. Forecasts for this show a 48 per cent cut in traffic in Bridge Street, but hardly any effect on traffic in Station Lane.
It also favours another four-way junction on the A40, west of the town at Curbridge, making use of the main road as a way from one side of Witney to the other without cluttering town centre roads.
Comments(59)
lancs-lass
says...
3:35pm Tue 9 Sep 08
Graeme M
says...
4:48pm Tue 9 Sep 08
bobby lashley
says...
8:18am Wed 10 Sep 08
Nigel R
says...
12:31pm Wed 10 Sep 08
Why do those in charge seem to be so single minded?
The old site used to let you preview message!
wozville
says...
9:01am Thu 11 Sep 08
Redmicka
says...
11:17am Thu 11 Sep 08
A 4 way junction at Shores Green isnt the answer. Is everyone really blind to the fact that people living North of the river (a good third or more by my reckoning) would not drive all the way up to Shores Green, along the A40 and then back down into Witney??? this just would not happen. The majority of people would still go over Bridge Street and the same problem continue.
The fact that this town has had so much new housing built over the last 20 years, much of it north of the river, makes it unbelievable that this discussion is still happening and there is STILL only 1 road over the river.
Think of al of the pollution that occurs, not only on Bridge Street, but Oxford Hill, Woodstock Road, West End, Mill Street, Burford Road, High Street, and all because all the traffic bottle necks over Bridge Street.
A 4 way junction at Shores Green will not stop people going over Bridge Street.
My only argument with the council is that this new link road should have been built 15 years ago when Sainsburys was built, or definitely made a condition on the developers of Madley Park that the new link road should have been a part of the contractors obligations.
Move on and wake up people of witney. We have a new large shopping centre and leisure facilities to open in 12 months time and yet we still have people burying their heads that simply a new 4 way juntion at Oxford Hill will sort the problem. It won't!!!
David Condon
says...
11:21am Thu 11 Sep 08
The campaign is for a SHORES GREEN 4-WAY JUNCTION, it has nothing to do with Curbridge!!
There is a County Council proposal to make a roundabout on the A40 where the Downs Road crosses it, which I think most people would support.
bobby lashley
says...
11:25am Thu 11 Sep 08
David Condon
says...
11:44am Thu 11 Sep 08
Your arguement is not backed up by the facts.
Using the stats supplied to OCC by Jacobs (traffic flow engineers) it is plain that the Shores Green 4-way junction will work just as well as Cogges Link Road but without creating a bigger problem at the Sainsbury's roundabout.
Even Ian Hudspeth of OCC agrees that the figures back our arguement!!
You can download all these figures yourself from the OCC web-site.
Have a look and let's see if it changes your mind.
Porphyro
says...
11:45am Thu 11 Sep 08
Redmicka
says...
12:38pm Thu 11 Sep 08
traffic engineers are the very people who have screwed up traffic policy in Oxford and many other cities.
Understanding human nature is far more important, and i say again, the majority of people living north of the river would NOT travel up to Shores Green, along the A40 and then down into witney via Ducklington Lane.
Being realistic and thinking about the way in which people act would tell you that if you sat down and thought logically. The Cogges Road should have been built years ago and i'm glad that the council are at last seeing sense and rising above the small down Witney syndrome that so many in this town suffer from.
If it was down to those who have had famly in witney for generations, there wouldnt be a new shopping and leisure complex being built, there probably wouldnt even be the Woolgate Centre, heavens forbid brightly coloured shop signs and nightclubs.
Move with the times and realise this town is growing and because of that, its infrastructure needs to grow with it.
Porphyro
says...
12:55pm Thu 11 Sep 08
on is a poor substitute for setting out a rational case that engages with the arguments of those with whom you disagree. Until you do that we shall have to assume that you have no case worth making.
Redmicka
says...
1:03pm Thu 11 Sep 08
you dont have to be a nuclear physicist to understand that the congestion problem in Witney is on Bridge Street and all roads that lead to it. You dont have to be a traffic engineer to understand that.
The new road will mean a 2nd bridge over the river, thus reducing the traffic flow through the bottle neck that is Bridge Street.
Is that so difficult to understand? People heading to the new caron parks at Woodford Way will probably still use Bridge Street, but those travelling to Sainsburys and Station Lane will in all likelihood use the new road, hence REDUCING congestion!!!!!!! the argument that it would mean more traffic on Witan Way and Station Lane is absolute garbage.
The council for once are making the correct decision and its good that theyre FINALLY getting their heads out of the sand and realising Witney is growing!!!
shame some of the inhabitants are still suffering from small market town syndrome of pre 90's.
Mr Ben
says...
1:30pm Thu 11 Sep 08
Playing 'Devils Avacado' (because I am more against the CLR, than for it - though willing to hear all arguments), Why might Redmicka be incorrect when they purport:
"Understanding human nature is far more important, and i say again, the majority of people living north of the river would NOT travel up to Shores Green, along the A40 and then down into witney via Ducklington Lane."
Why would this not be the case? Of course, Redmicka may not have any 'actual evidence' but it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. :-).
I for one have a feeling that the difference in location of the start of the CLR and Shores Green (from Cogges) is negligible, so if people are going to drive up to the Cogges Link road to use that, then they're going to drive an extra few metres to use the CPRE's alternative - which is the Shores Green...
It is true that, as one of the laws of problem solving ('Difference Reduction') notes, people struggle to move away from their goal, preferring to move towards it - even if it is not necessarily the best way to reach the goal in the long term. However, both the Shores Green and the CLR forces people to go against this bit human behaviour (of moving away from their intended target). However, people will inevitably engage in what is known as Means-Ends Analysis: They will see that, with all factors considered, going away from the intended goal (overcoming the need to engage in Difference Reduction) is the best strategy for reaching their goal in the long term. That’s human psychology - or, if you like, human nature.
Monty D
says...
1:33pm Thu 11 Sep 08
David Condon
says...
2:01pm Thu 11 Sep 08
The answer is-
1) Make a 4-way junction at Shore Green.
2) Improve the Ducklington roundabout so that traffic approaching Witney on the A415 can access the A40 (both west & east) easier. Also make better use of the space for traffic going under the A40 bridge.
3)Build the Downs Road/A40 roundabout. (Already penned in)
4)Finally look at building a short section of road referred to as the West End Link (WEL) which will help relieve West End and Bridge Street from traffic entering Witney centre from Haily direction.
The A40 bypass has spare capacity and is the key to helping to relieve Witney's traffic problems.
Monty D
says...
2:16pm Thu 11 Sep 08
David Condon
says...
2:26pm Thu 11 Sep 08
"it is obviously wide enough"
Are you talking about the existing Stanton Harcourt Rd or the CLR?
Obviously the CLR would be wide enough, but not the current (Stanton Harcourt) road which is inadequate.
Monty D
says...
2:50pm Thu 11 Sep 08
Monty D
says...
3:07pm Thu 11 Sep 08
firstwitney
says...
5:07pm Thu 11 Sep 08
To compare the relative effectivness of theCLR versus the Shores Green proposal I have taken the junction of Jubilee Way and Oxford Hill as the common starting point and the Welch Way/High street junction as the midpoint between the main carparks.The distance to travel using The CLR would be 3 km and the comparable distance for the Shores Green route is 6 km.
It is obvious that people would be naturally reluctant to travel this extra distance thereby rendering this proposal ineffective.What scheme do you believe would be a white elephant?
Porphyro
says...
5:44pm Thu 11 Sep 08
I'm trying hard to make sense of your point: you say (in measured language: "the argument that it would mean more traffic on Witan Way and Station Lane is absolute garbage". You also suggest that the success of the CLR will be measured by the volume of traffic it carries, thereby relieving Bridge Street. Now, this extra traffic will be deposited on the existing road network at the Sainsbury's roundabout. If that doesn't increase congestion on an already congested stretch of road, perhaps you can explain why not.
Mr Ben
You argue an interesting and persuasive case. At least as relevant as distance travelled is journey time; if a 3km journey takes me 15 minutes and a 6km journey takes me 7.5 minutes I'll drive the 6km, using roughly the same amount of fuel, saving myself half the journey time of the shorter route, free up road space for others who have to use the route I'm avoiding and save myself the frustration of stop-start driving. That seems to me the rational decision, even if it offends Redmicka's understanding of human nature.
firstwitney
says...
9:13am Fri 12 Sep 08
More miles means more fuel means more polution.
Another point made by others is that the CLR will dump traffic at the Sainsbury.Surely if the SG scheme attracted similar volumes (and to be effective this is what it would need to do),this traffic would end up at the Ducklington Roundabout ( ie further from the centre of town)much of which would still cross the said roundabout.It does't make sense does it.
Porphyro
says...
12:28pm Fri 12 Sep 08
My point was based om the hypothetical but realistic situation of having a choice of routes, one of which is shorter but highly congested and the other longer but free-flowing. More miles does not necessarily mean more time and more fuel in a situation like that. I know which option I'd take! I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly enough first time round.
The point about SG is that it enables traffic bound for Burford, Cheltenham, Abingdon, Standlake, etc to avoid the town centre altogether. For many people wanting to go into the town centre, Bridge Street would still be a preferable route to the CLR where the inevitable final stage of the journey would be stop-start along Station Lane or Witan Way and additional congestion to clog up the road system.
firstwitney
says...
11:26am Sat 13 Sep 08
OK I can see where your're coming from.
However I was merely comparing the relative effectiveness of the two schemes in getting traffic to the town centre at peak times and of course the CLR wins hands down.I maintain that if this problem is solved the traffic heading for the west will have a much easier route through the town.
I would also point out that a route for westbound traffic north of the town is already available, albeit through a heavily used ratrun through Crawley.I fear people would still use this route in preference to the long diversion via Shores Green.As for traffic heading for Abingdon,having reached Shores Green,it is unlikely that they would double-back westwards and snake through the various villages they would of course take the shorter and more direct route along the A40 eastwards.
All told then the SG scheme is not much use to anyone except perhaps those people starting their journey from Southleigh.
You will note that I have not used traffic figures to back-up my assertions nor do I intend to.I know that traffic prediction is a very complex subject and should be left to those qualified to do so.That is perhaps why the Council much prefer the CLR as advised by theirofficers and consultants. God preserve us from the enthusiastic amateur
nickwilcock
says...
12:50pm Sat 13 Sep 08
Quite so. But non-one has even considered that - and yet the sheer impossibility for eastbound A40 traffic returning to Cogges on any CLR indicates what a nonsense the CLR would be!
Shores Green is the obvious way ahead. And one thing people need to keep an eye on is the 'complementary traffic calming measures' which the authorities would try to inflict on Newland and Bridge Street to FORCE us to use the Cogges Bypass. In other words, yet more road humps and other measures.....
Incidentally, which route would the traffic gurus have us use to drive to the new Marriott's close multi-storey car park from Cogges? And before the bicycle brained buffoonery starts, there are occasions when people need cars to carry heavy shopping home which can't all be carried. Would they have us queue to join the Cogges Bypass, then turn right at Sainsbury, left outside the sports centre, right down the High St and left into Marriott's close? Or perhaps queue up at the appallingly congested Ducklington Lane / Thorney Leys lights, turn right, then fight our way arouns the roundabout at the bottom of Tower Hill?
I'd just use the present route!
Porphyro
says...
3:16pm Sat 13 Sep 08
What an enthusiastic amateur you are!
You say: "I was merely comparing the relative effectiveness of the two schemes in getting traffic to the town centre at peak times and of course the CLR wins hands down".
Asserting that doesn't make it so. As nickwilcock says, having used the CLR to arrive at the Sainsbury's roundabout, your troubles begin. Whichever way you turn, you will join gridlock at peak times and suffer great frustration as you try to complete the last half-mile of your journey to the Waitrose car park or the Marriotts Close multi-storey. I'd stick to the Bridge Street route if I were you!
As for your supposition that the journey from Witney to Abingdon would best be completed via the A40, have you ever tried that during peak times? Do it that way if you like, but most people who value their time will use the A415.
You also say: "You will note that I have not used traffic figures to back-up my assertions nor do I intend to.I know that traffic prediction is a very complex subject and should be left to those qualified to do so." Could it be be that you reject the figures because they crush your argument? The truth is that the traffic figures (independently gathered by consultants)emphatic
ally support the case for Shores Green and expose the fatal weekness in the CLR proposal - how additional traffic is routed away from the Sainsbury's roundabout gridlock.The great mystery is how OCC can ignore the findings of the enquiry inspector and the traffic flow research to favour the CLR proposal.Judged solely on traffic flow impact SG clearly out-performs CLR, and the environmental arguments overwhelmingly favour SG. The CLR would become at best an expensive irrelevanve, at worst a cause of even worse town centre congestion.
Porphyro
says...
3:19pm Sat 13 Sep 08
What an enthusiastic amateur you are!
You say: "I was merely comparing the relative effectiveness of the two schemes in getting traffic to the town centre at peak times and of course the CLR wins hands down".
Asserting that doesn't make it so. As nickwilcock says, having used the CLR to arrive at the Sainsbury's roundabout, your troubles begin. Whichever way you turn, you will join gridlock at peak times and suffer great frustration as you try to complete the last half-mile of your journey to the Waitrose car park or the Marriotts Close multi-storey. I'd stick to the Bridge Street route if I were you!
As for your supposition that the journey from Witney to Abingdon would best be completed via the A40, have you ever tried that during peak times? Do it that way if you like, but most people who value their time will use the A415.
You also say: "You will note that I have not used traffic figures to back-up my assertions nor do I intend to.I know that traffic prediction is a very complex subject and should be left to those qualified to do so." Could it be be that you reject the figures because they crush your argument? The truth is that the traffic figures (independently gathered by consultants)emphatic
ally support the case for Shores Green and expose the fatal weakness in the CLR proposal - how additional traffic is routed away from the Sainsbury's roundabout gridlock.The great mystery is how OCC can ignore the findings of the enquiry inspector and the traffic flow research to favour the CLR proposal.Judged solely on traffic flow impact SG clearly out-performs CLR, and the environmental arguments overwhelmingly favour SG. The CLR would become at best an expensive irrelevance, at worst a cause of even worse town centre congestion.
firstwitney
says...
7:40pm Sat 13 Sep 08
You don't happen to live at Southleigh do you.
Nigel R
says...
9:19pm Sat 13 Sep 08
You will continue travelling down bridge street and it is other traffic that will not use bridge street making it less congested.
Porphyro
says...
11:33am Sun 14 Sep 08
Thanks for explaining the point for firstwitney. I thought my earlier attempts had done the trick, but he doesn't seem to want to understand that there are circumstances in which it makes sense to travel further in order to save time. On a similar principle, the M6 toll road speeds up progress for those who are prepared to pay to avoid congestion on the free-to-use M6 north of Birmingham. Perhaps that's the answer: charge a toll to use Bridge Street and then the CLR might make more sense! (Disclaimer: no, firstwitney, just my sense of irony coming into play -
that's not a serious suggestion!)
firstwitney
says...
11:47am Sun 14 Sep 08
Of course I understand that and I agree I shall continue to use Bridge Street even when the CLR is built.I just want to see a scheme that is effective in reducing the congestion and I have very serious doubts that the SG proposal will do that to any appreciable degree.
nickwilcock
says...
11:59am Sun 14 Sep 08
Whereas leaving the A40 at Shores Green......
Seriously though, the ORIGINAL purpose of the Cogges 'Link' was to allow Cogges residents to reach the town centre without needing to use Bridge St. But those days were 20 years ago - and the current road design will merely clog up Station Lane and Witan Way.
The Shores Green solution is clearly the best overall solution.
Newland Resident
says...
3:52pm Mon 6 Oct 08
Having lived on Newland, since moving to Witney some 25 years ago, I am all too aware of the environmental issues. I have been breathing the fumes from the stationary vehicles, outside my house, as a result of the Bridge Street bottlenecks, for all of those years - and the Cogges Link Road had originally been proposed around the same time, to relieve the problem, in a workable way.
I have found something interesting which has enabled me to compare the distances involved with both my current route into town and the CLR, as well as for the alternative, proposed by some - the so called Shores Green solution - its a map / travel route web site, which also enables you to measure distances, on the road - using its "Distance Measuring Tool" and selecting a series of waypoints on the map, at junctions etc. I loaded a map of Witney, zoomed in so that you can see detail and then worked out the following route distances.
1) My house, to Waitrose, using Bridge Street - 1.3Km
2) My house, to Waitrose, using the Cogges Link Road - 2.5 Km to 2.7Km, depending on the exact route. I do not have the actual detailed route.
3) My house, to Waitrose, using the Shores Green option - 6.4Km.
My argument is therefore actually quite succinct - In order to be a viable proposition, the distance must be reasonable. I would not travel 4 times the present distance, to use the Shores Green solution and I do not believe that others would either. Its just too far round. However, I would be prepared to use the Cogges Link Road, at about twice the distance, in order to avoid Bridge street snarl ups.
The thought of some 1942 vehicles (AM Peak) driving 4 times the distance is not viable.
You might be interested to have a look yourself. The web site is HYPERLINK www.uk.map24.com www.uk.map24.com
This is quite apart from the obvious issues to do with increased fuel usage, to use the Shores Green option, with all of the environmental problems that would cause.
* Bridge Street, Witney carries 30,000 vehicles per day.
* Shores Green involves driving twice as far as the Cogges Link Road.
* WITNEY ONLY HAS ONE BRIDGE ACCROSS THE RIVER.
* I support the Cogges Link Road - The sooner the better.
Newland Resident
chris66
says...
1:28pm Wed 8 Oct 08
richwitney
says...
6:22pm Wed 8 Oct 08
chris66 wrote:But that's such a small percentage of the problem - I guess less than 1 in 10 cars from North Witney are heading West on the A40.
I like the detailed reasearch but no one is actually saying you have to use SG to reach the middle of town, it alleviates traffic that wants to go west on the A40 but has to go through witney to do so. Also, if you live in Newland why do you drive? I know quite a few OAPs who live in Newland and further afield and always walk across Langel, its a lot shorter you know.
If I'm going that way I'll use the A40 farm overbridge, which isn't a lot longer than the SG solution anyway... and that suggests that the SG option isn't a lot better than what we currently have!
Porphyro
says...
7:30pm Thu 9 Oct 08
richwitney
says...
5:46pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Porphyro wrote:So you'd still use the Bridge Street route, and travel approx 0.5 miles more, go through 6 sets of traffic lights (including the new ones at the bottom of Newland and Mill Street), over lots of speed humps, or just turn right onto the CLR and travelling 1.1 mile into the centre of Witney?
Newland Resident's support for CLR is based on the preposterous notion that anyone would expect him to drive from Newland to Waitrose via SG. I live in Oxlease and would continue to use Bridge Street for that journey rather than the CLR (which I do not believe is ever likely to be built)when I need to use the car rather than walk or cycle across the Langel. My advice to anyone is to visit the OCC exhibition at the Marlborough after visiting the pro-SG presentation in the Corn Exchange. Ask questions, keep an open mind and see what makes more sense.
Porphyro
says...
3:21pm Sat 11 Oct 08
My usual means of getting into Witney are walking and cycling; when I need to drive in I avoid peak times and complete the journey via Bridges Street in 5 minutes.
Let's try to stick to the facts rather than massage the figures to claim advantages than are illusory.
Porphyro
says...
3:22pm Sat 11 Oct 08
My usual means of getting into Witney are walking and cycling; when I need to drive in I avoid peak times and complete the journey via Bridges Street in 5 minutes.
Let's try to stick to the facts rather than massage the figures to claim advantages than are illusory.
richwitney
says...
7:29pm Sat 11 Oct 08
Porphyro wrote:I just don't think the Sainsbury's rounadbout will be as bad as the figures suggest - the figures from OCC are only based on modelling, which is notoriously unreliable.
richwitney: the distances you cite are inaccurate; from my house to the Waitrose car park the CLR route would be slightly further than the Bridge Street route. I take your point about traffic lights etc but my assumpttion is that at peak times Station Lane/Witan Way would be so congested that progress would be extremely slow and the CLR would simply create a worse bottleneck in that area - and I'll avoid it if at all possible. What is the point of spending £16M (with inflation and contingencies makes that £20M+)on a "solution" that replaces one bottleneck with another one?
My usual means of getting into Witney are walking and cycling; when I need to drive in I avoid peak times and complete the journey via Bridges Street in 5 minutes.
Let's try to stick to the facts rather than massage the figures to claim advantages than are illusory.
I can just see the Shores Green option going ahead and having no noticable affect on the nightmare that is Bridge Street, and then what options are left? None.
What the SG supporters are suggesting is that if this had been a 4-way junction from the start (Ie the 70's), Witney wouldn't currently have any traffic problems. That's just plainly worng - in fact it's a shame it wasn't as we'd now have progress on the only real solution to have a chance of making a difference.
There's blatantly no easy solution - but there's only one option of which most of the funding is in place, has the support of 3 levels of government, and atually helps get most people from one side of Witney to the centre of it, not to the other side of the centre.
Porphyro
says...
8:31am Sun 12 Oct 08
This another piece of make-believe. I have never heard an advocate of SG make such an absurd claim, and I doubt if richwitney has heard an SG supporter say it either!
We should all be trying to find the best way to alleviate congestion, balancing the traffic-flow benefits with the environmental and financial costs of the various options. The CLR lobby seems intent on doing it their way and pretending that no other suggestions should even be on the agenda.
I ask again: how could the CLR carry the projected volume of traffic at peak times without significantly adding to congestion at Station Lane/Witan Way? Forget the highly suspect traffic flow projections and go and observe the traffic flow along Station lane/Witan Way at peak times if you doubt what I say.
nickwilcock
says...
12:17pm Mon 13 Oct 08
However, this is no longer true today, so it is an obvious alternative.
The Cogges 'Link' as currently proposed is now just a bypass and would not 'link' Cogges with anything except congestion in Station Lane and Witan Way.
Now is the time to sound the death knell of the Cogges Link Road once and for all.
firstwitney
says...
1:51pm Mon 13 Oct 08
Porphyro
says...
6:51pm Mon 13 Oct 08
So, the CPRE is making "outrageously inaccurate and distorted claims", is it? Easy words to write, but not so easy to illustrate and substantiate, which is why, presumambly, you make no attempt to do so. Then you resort to innuendo, suggesting that those of us who support the SG scheme have some sort of vested interest. Pure balderdash, and shabby tactics too. The landowners stands to benefit whether SG or CLR is built. The debate should be conducted in a spirit of fair-minded evaluation of the likely traffic flow benefits, and the environmental financial costs. Most of us are trying to do just that. So, why do you repeat points that a few weeks ago were corrected by other correspondents, to your apparent satisfaction? I'm thinking in particular of your curious belief that routing additional traffic onto Station Lane/Witan Way will result in less congestion. Perhaps in the world of alternative systems of logic, this might work, but not in the world I live in.
Nigel R
says...
9:34pm Mon 13 Oct 08
I am not a land owner who is going to gain and expect a lot of the other objectors are not land owners either and have made up their own minds about the CLR v SG options as I have based on all the evidence that has been presented.
Reading FirstWitney's post it gives the impression that those at OCC's exhibition rubbished the SG option and that the CLR was a clear winner and the only option. I found that this was not the case and they were prepared to talk about both schemes. They agreed that both schemes would reduce traffic flow, noise and air quality in the Core area. This is not surprising as their own TAG report says this in section 9.1.2 in the following download. Thus firstwitneys argument does not hold up.
http://portal.oxford
shire.gov.uk/content
/publicnet/council_s
ervices/roads_transp
ort/major_projects/c
ogges/CLR_03b-TAG-As
sessment.pdf
They said their decision that the CLR is better than SG is based on other benefits such as there being less predicted accidents on the CLR over SG.
Personally I feel that the increase in traffic in the Station Road / Sainsburys roundabout and the costs in the current economic climate significantly outweighs the other benefits especially when "both schemes achieve very similar reductions in the core area." If the CLR did not clog up station road even more I would be more inclined to support the CLR but the cost would still bother me.
FirstWitney can you prove the CPRE are wrong about the increase in traffic rather that just speculate they are wrong? Even Ian Hudspeth does not deny they are wrong in the article that we are commenting on and those at OCCs exhibtion did not deny they are wrong but just said there were other benefits.
richwitney
says...
7:29am Tue 14 Oct 08
I'm afraid your campaign has been tainted with this charge, and despite trying to keep Mr Mawle out of the spot-light, people in Witney know the real truth behind the Pro-SGSR campaign.
In fact, from spending over an hour at each exhibition on Saturday, I'd say there was a significant swing to the CLR option.
firstwitney
says...
10:59am Tue 14 Oct 08
So you consider the CPRE letter to be a 'fair minded evaluation' do you?I objected to what was left of their evaluation of the traffic forecasts as much as the shoddy scaremongering statements employed.
I wonder what proportion of letters were returned compared to the number delivered to the Witney residents.
If you think it curious that my belief that providing a second river crossing will reduce congestion then you are right----we do live in different worlds.
Porphyro
says...
11:03am Tue 14 Oct 08
More smears and innuendo from you; no attempt to address the substantive points about which scheme will best serve the needs of residents of and visitors to Witney.
The pro-SG exhibition was factual and informative, setting the CLR proposals in a historical context, and the Mawles, far from "trying to keep...out of the spotlight" as you dishonestly claim, were there to explain and answer any questions that anyone cared to put to them.
It is quite simply risible for you to claim that "people in Witney know the real truth behind the Pro-SGSR campaign". You seem to be more concerned with spreading disinformation and pro-CLR propaganda than having a sensible discussion about the merits of the schemes. It really isn't possible to have a productive discussion if you don't accept the rules of rational debate.
By the way, why do you think the independent planning inspector ruled against the CLR in 2005 and recommended that the SG option be explored as an alternative? Was he also part of your grand conspiracy theory?
Porphyro
says...
11:15am Tue 14 Oct 08
I wrote my 11.03 contribution before reading yours of 10.59. Once again you make extravagant but unspecific allegations; what were these "shoddy scaremongering statements" that you accuse the CPRE of making? You can't expect to be taken seriously if you merely abuse those who take a different view from yours.
Since you still make no attempt to defend the logic of your position, I ask yet again: How will routing additional traffic onto Station Lane/Witan Way result in less congestion there?
firstwitney
says...
3:55pm Tue 14 Oct 08
Porphyro
Referring to your 11.03 post ,you seem to have confused me with another contributer.I don't recognise the comments you infer.
With regard to your next post, the statements I refer to are those circulated by the CPRE in which the recipients were invited to tick boxes.The emotive statements refer to pollution,noise ,delays at traffic lights etc etc with no reference to the extensive mitigating measures proposed.
The aim of the CLR scheme is to reduce congestion at the Bridge Street bottleneck but there will be no net increase in traffic as you appear to assume.It certainly seems illogical to me to route traffic from the east in a long detour around the town only to end up as far from the centre as when the started but on the west side.Assuming enough people took this route to make any appreciable difference to the town centre traffic(which I very much doupt) what would be the effect on the already busy Ducklington roundabout.The pro-SG lobby seem to have ignored this issue.
Porphyro
says...
4:41pm Tue 14 Oct 08
First, my apologies for confusing you with richwitney; my 11.03 post was a response to his comments.
What you describe as "shoddy scaremongering statements" from the CPRE are these:
will:
Bring noise pollution and congestion to the residents of Cogges;
Bring congestion to Station Lane and Witan Way roundabout:;
Degrade the Windrush watermeadows;
Do very little to help through traffic.
These are temperate and factually correct statements; perhaps you will now either justify your description of them as "shoddy scaremongering" (difficult) or withdraw the charge(easy).
Again you side-step the question I repeated in my 11.15 post, and which dates back to mid-September.The SG solution would of course divert some traffic away from the town centre entirely.
nickwilcock
says...
7:47am Wed 15 Oct 08
I note that one contributor has issues with the 'already overcrowded' Ducklingto roundabout. This is irrelevant in the context of the SG scheme; Cogges traffic will use SG to access the A40 to the west and Bridge St. to access the town from the east. Whereas with the Cogges Bypass, access to the A40 via the Ducklington roundabout would also require negotiating the chaotic congestion of Station Lane, Thorney Leys and Ducklington Lane - so the traffic would probably still use Bridge St and the pre-bypass old Burford Road to Asthall Barrow.
SG must be built as a priority; however, it would make some sense to preserve the route intended for the Cogges Bypass for possible future consideration only.
Incidentally, I am still waiting for a reply from OCC telling me what 'improvements to the Station Lane/Thorney Leys/Ducklington Lane junction' their 'consultants' proposed. In his e-mail to me of 7 Dec 2004, Michael Crook stated:
'We acknowledge that there would be some impact on the Ducklington Lane/Station Lane junction, so we have commissioned our consultants to look at this junction to see what measures could be taken to improve traffic flows here'.
What are these measures please, Mr Crook?
firstwitney
says...
11:21am Wed 15 Oct 08
Porphyro
says...
1:46pm Wed 15 Oct 08
More bluff and bluster! The poverty of your position is clear from your refusal to say precisely what it is about the CPRE statements that constitutes "shoddy scaremongering". At least that's a partial retreat from your earlier (13 October) allegation of "outrageously inaccurate and distorted claims".
Leaving aside the strong environmental case against CLR, the key point that its supporters consistently refuse to address is this: how can the CLR succeed in its traffic-flow function when at peak times it will deposit more traffic on an already gridlocked Station Lane/Witan Way?
Nigel R
says...
10:51pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I know you two don't believe that there will be a build up around Station Lane / Witan Way with the CLR and think this has been made up. However if this was the case then would this not be detrimental to Witney?
FirstWitney
I did not bother going to the SG exhibition because of who is was being run by as I have made my own mind up, so I am curious to know how the £25 million will be made by the land oweners. I can only assume it by building houses and the £25 million figure is a figure they gave you.
Do you really think the council is going to turn around and say "oh I suppose you can build houses now you have got your road and we have not got the road we wanted"? I find these things work like - scratch my back and I will scratch yours and rub me up the wrong way and you will never get anything from me.
Also do you think the CPRE is going to want all the houses on the land it has fought to keep open country side and the traffic increase that will bring?
I am sure most of the others who want SG will object to the houses as well
Nigel R
says...
10:56pm Wed 15 Oct 08
On the home page click the most comments and top article has 4 comments yet this thread has had 20 odd comments in the last week and does not feature
firstwitney
says...
12:18pm Thu 16 Oct 08
Re your 10.51 post I'm sorry but I don't identify with your remarks apparently addressed to me.
sam lister
says...
3:05pm Fri 20 Feb 09
More Headlines stories
- Free chance to get in the swim
- Mini marketing drive catches a chill
- School meals are to be outsourced
- Rogue trader jailed for six months
- Adam awarded for brave fight against leukaemia
- City to host world summit on improving literacy skills
- Biker injures leg
- 'We face future without water'
- Stabbing victim recalls nightmare at shops
- A trip down memory lane
Campaigners launch new attack on road plans
Most popular
GENERAL ELECTION: CONSTITUENCIES
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with