This gives us here at WiSBAng a bit of a headache, as since the closure of the A344, it seems more people have been taking vehicles onto Byway 12 and parking up for a picnic and a quick gawk at Stonehenge. All perfectly above board and legal and, indeed, stopping on a byway for an hour or so for a picnic is a nice thing to do. Although we can't prove Byway 12 existed before Stonehenge, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise the some tracks in and around the site of Stonehenge had to pre-date the stones and Byway 12 would be a pretty good contender. Consequently, tracks like Byway 12 are part and parcel of the World Heritage Site landscape and deserve the same level of permanent protection as any other part of that site. Moreover, they are the only feature of that landscape that can be used for their original purpose - transport!
The problem has been that to pull off the A303 onto Byway 12, the traffic has to slow down and that causes a soliton to develop in addition to a second one a few hundred yards east adjacent to the henge and a third soliton just east of Stonehenge Bottom. All of these solitons, contribute to the traffic jams that develop on the A303 near Stonehenge; even in the absence of large volumes of traffic. So, on the one hand, it would make sense to stop traffic turning off the A303 as it would remove one of the three solitons.
What has happened so far has been ill-conceived, disingenuous, and not particularly successful - trying to stop right turns into and out of Byway 12 - using the specious argument of safety. Just how specious the argument is can be demonstrated by a moments thought - how many other right turns are there - roads, tracks, field gates, byways, driveways and roads between Stonehenge Bottom and the start of the next section of dual carriageway west of Winterbourne Stoke?
The answer, if you care to count, might well surprise you. There are dozens and many have narrower entries and exits than Byway 12, with greater levels of vehicular usage. No one is suggesting closing these.
If logic doesn't appeal to you, then look at the Wiltshire Police accident figures for the A303 over the last 5 years.
Yes, that's right, although there have been two accidents close to Byway 12, that was no worse than at the old A344/A303 junction at Stonehenge Bottom. You would be better able to justify banning right turns onto and off the B3083, or even the A360 on safety grounds, than you can for Byway 12 as the accident rates adjacent to both these roads are significantly worse than at Byway 12.
So the argument that has been used to justify banning right turns, by the Highways Agency and Wiltshire Council just doesn't hold water and, rightly, reflects badly on the competence of both organisations and anyone else who supported these measures for the reasons stated. Just because it might have achieved the desired effect doesn't make it good use of the law.
That said, temporary closure of Byway 12 to vehicular traffic, for an honest reason - that it slows the traffic and causes jams - might be justifiable. But, there is a problems, a historic problem, a big problems. English Heritage.
English Heritage have lobbied hard in the past for the complete and permanent closure of Byway 12, and, whatever their stated reasons for doing so it is clear that it would give them pretty close to total control of access to the World Heritage site, by vehicles, cycles, horse riders and pedestrians. We think it is pretty safe to say that they are unlikely to have changed their views. So any request by English Heritage for closure of Byway 12 by English Heritage should call in to question their true motivation. It should be questioned even more closely given the restricted group who met with Ed Vaizey last week.
Back in November, when we met with other stakeholders to discuss measures to prevent traffic chaos on the A303 this summer, we raised our concerns about English Heritage's motives when the suggestion of closing the TRO was made. We also gave English Heritage a means by which they could demonstrate the integrity of their position and honesty of their motives for seeking closure of Byway 12 for vehicular traffic. We will repeat that here.
We at WiSBAng would reluctantly support the temporary closure of Byway 12 to vehicular traffic (not to cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians) until the A303 is improved; simply as an expedient means of improving traffic flow. We will do so ONLY if there is a legal undertaking, by Ed Vaizey, English Heritage and the WHS, to NOT pursue the permanent closure of Byway 12. We would expect that vehicular traffic is again given access to Byway 12, once improvements are made to the A303, or immediately should a decision be taken to NOT improve the A303.
We would suggest that if the parties above are not prepared to give such an undertaking, then even temporary closure of the A303 WILL be actively resisted.
4 comments:
Isn't it a bit of a concern that no truly local stakeholders are reported as having been at the meeting? Still, that's probably ideal if you want to present a distorted, inaccurate and one-sided case to someone like Ed Vaizey.
It was just that concern that prompted me to write the post in the first place. If there was genuine concern that turning on to Byway 12 was dangerous, then why not engage with the other stakeholders. On the other hand, if you were trying to use the current traffic situation as an excuse to close Byway 12 to achieve broader strategic aims, you might expect that to be kept to a narrow group of like-minded players.
As a local cyclist, and thinking of foreign visitors by cycle, I object strongly to any idea of permanent closure of Byway 12. There are some byways that have access controls on whilst allowing non-motorised vehicles (bikes, horses etc) full access. However, I agree that English Heritage are not to be trusted, there is always a negative ulterior motive with them. Can you advise please where I should register an official objection to the closure of Byway12, or have we not reached that stage yet? Thanks, Alan Doel.
Thanks for your comment Alan. You are correct in saying that there is a form of access control that permits access by non-motorised vehicles (pedestrians, cyclists, horses and horses and carriages). It is called a Kent Carriage Gap. English Heritage were meant to install one near their entrance at Airman's Cross before the new Visitor's Centre. See: http://www.maydencroft.co.uk/view-details/2050/1/Contracting-access-control/Kent-carriage-gaps.htm for details. Of course, it won't stop motorcyclists, but if the intention is to enhance traffic safety, then this shouldn't matter at all.
So far, we are not aware that any official steps have been taken towards the temporary or permanent closure of Byway 12 - but we will post here as soon as we get wind of any such action.
Post a Comment