Whenever I hear someone tell me that: "It's in your best interests to do X, or Y," alarm bells ring very loudly indeed. In my experience, true philanthropy is a very rare quality and what these individuals really mean is: "It's in my best interests for you to do X or Y. Selfish self-interest is a powerful driver indeed.
When such a statement is made by a politician, then the alarm bells ring more loudly than ever. That's what is going on at the moment; a cacophony of alarm bells, whistles and sirens are sounding off. A great deal of effort is being made to persuade many of those with an interest in doing something about the untenable situation of the A303 to pull together to support the tunnel under Stonehenge and the northern bypass of Winterbourne Stoke and to put pressure on Highways England to adopt that solution.
Bearing in mind the opening to this post, whose best interests are served by this? It would certainly provide a solution to the traffic problems, but would it provide the best solution; particularly for Winterbourne Stoke? What would benefit Winterbourne Stoke the most? Forgetting for a moment the options on offer, I would suggest the denizens of Winterbourne Stoke want some or all of the following:
- a reduction in traffic volumes within the village;
- a reduction of traffic noise within the village;
- a reduction in traffic pollution across the village
- no more damage to the environment
- no more damage to the known and unknown archaeology of the area.
The best way to achieve that is to remove the A303 from the equation. Remove it entirely, absolutely and unequivocally from the equation. To do that there would seem only two alternatives. Dig a tunnel from east (NOT west) of Countess Roundabout and emerge, blinking into the daylight, having bankrupted the nation, somewhere between Yarnbury Castle and the A303 Deptford interchange, or simply re-route the A303 south of Amesbury past Boscombe Down, through the Woodford Valley on a couple of magnificent and architecturally inspiring viaducts, then rejoining the route of the current A36 towards the Deptford interchange. Whilst the super-long tunnel option is unaffordable in anyone's book, even Highways England admit the southern route would be a substantially cheaper than either of the tunnel-based proposals on the table.
Now given that many of the archaeological community, locally, nationally and internationally, are against the proposed tunnel option and bypasses for Winterbourne Stoke, would want to expand the boundaries of the current World Heritage Site to accommodate both known and suspected archaeology and want to remove the A303 from the entirety of the area, then clearly, we have something in common. Whilst we have never been natural bed-fellows in the past, perhaps now is the time for those immediately affected to cosy-up with each other? Our selfish self-interest is best served by removing the A303 in it's entirety. A tunnel with a northern bypass or a tunnel with a southern bypass are very much secondary and tertiary options which satisfy few, if any, of the desires and aspirations of Winterbourne Stoke.
Now the politicos will tell you that this isn't on the agenda. Accept what you are being offered and let us get on with it! They would, wouldn't they. Don't forget though, that when considering traffic issue, nothing has a better turning circle than a politician - especially ones trying to balance the books.
Showing posts with label Amesbury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amesbury. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 June 2017
Thursday, 2 February 2017
On Ignoring The Obvious and Pulling The Wool Over People's Eyes
The last couple of weeks have been rather surreal, ever since Highways England launched their plans for a tunnel under Stonehenge and a bypass for our beleaguered village of Winterbourne Stoke - and added a sting in the tail by offering a southern bypass route as an option. Although Highways England claim not to have a preference for either route, it is clear from their presentation material, from general reactions and to be honest, from verbal comments made by their own staff at several of the consultation events that there is a degree of bias towards the southern route.
Now we here at WiSBANG prefer the northern route for a couple of very simple reasons: lower levels of noise and pollution. Figure 1 below shows exactly why this is. The prevailing wind, as is easily confirmed by recourse to the UK Met Office is from the south west, at lower levels, within the village there are 5 years-worth of readings that show the wind at ground level comes from the south-south-east - there is a wind-rose in the bottom right hand corner of Fig 1 that shows this clearly.
Consequently, noise and pollution would be blown from the southern route into the heart of the village. Now, leaving aside those members of the community whose business interests would be best served by not having the northern route, you have to ask who in their right mind would opt for the southern route?
So, putting the bypass to the south of Winterbourne Stoke is quite simply, on environmental grounds alone, a crass idea for Winterbourne Stoke. The genius who had this brainstorm doubled the environmental impact by stuffing the route midway between Winterbourne Stoke and Berwick St James to the south; doubling the numbers of folk affected by additional road noise at a stroke.
In the case of the northern route, the noise and pollution is helped on its way by the prevailing wind, up into the Salisbury Plain Training Area where it might annoy the odd rabbit that isn't already stone deaf from listening to the Army AS-90s and whose sense of smell has been dulled by screening smokes.
Oddly, Highways England reckon, in the turgid depths of their Technical Appraisal Review that there is little to choose between these two routes on environmental grounds. Really? How can this be so?
Let's be charitable and call it "pulling the wool over people's eyes." This is how it seems to work. Rather than considering the impact of each route just from the A360 to Berwick Down and the people directly affected by it - say 80 or so households in Winterbourne Stoke and 70 or so in Berwick St James, why not consider the whole route from Amesbury to Berwick Down and aggregate all those affected in Amesbury as well (about a 1000) with the numbers from Winterbourne Stoke or Winterbourne Stoke + Berwick St James. Then apply a crude level of granularity, by considering only blocks of 100 houses in your evaluations.
So if you consider the first case and look at each route and those households directly affected within 1km of it, then the northern route affects around 80 households. On the other hand, the southern route affects 80 + 70 = 150 households. So again, no right thinking person would ever opt for the southern route - it affects nearly twice the number of households as does the northern route.
However, if you live in the brave new world of Highways England, the equation is like this: the northern route affects 1000 + 100 (because 80 is nearly 100) = 1100 households. On the other hand, the southern route affects 1000 + 100 (because 80 +70 = 150 which isn't near enough to 200 to be counted as 200) = 1100. QED!
Both routes have the same environmental impact? Well I'm blowed. Highways England have just proved black is white. Whoever came up with this way of 'selling' the bypass should hang their head(s) in shame.
Highways England would clearly like us to take their assessments as articles of faith. Getting any real information out of them is hideously painful and is following an all to predictable course. The rules of the game are simple, the more you already know, the more you will get. You first get a flat denial that information exists. When you apply a little pressure you are told that they wouldn't normally collect that sort of data at this stage . Some may falter now, but don't. Grab them by their metaphorical testicles and squeeze - please do not do so for real, no matter how tempting things get!
The third stage is confession and confession they say is good for the soul - it isn't quite as good for our blood pressure though. They admit to having got the data, but suggest that "you probably wouldn't understand it" and when you point out that "yes you would." the pantomime descends into its final stage of obfuscation. "The data is available, but you have to go through official channels to get it!" But this isn't a game! It is our future!
Well, the channels have been gone through and the silence from Highways England is positively deafening!
Call us cynical, but you get the feeling that the prime driver for route selection, at least as far as Highways England is concerned, is to pick the route that helps them get rid of all the spoil dug out from under Stonehenge for the tunnel and that happens to be the southern route That's the elephant in the room, the spoil. That might go some way to explain why Highways England are reluctant to share information with the public - they might spot the 2 million ton elephant.
Now don't get me wrong, we need a bypass, badly. But not a bypass at any price, not a bypass route that isn't the best option for the most households, not a bypass route that we have to accept as an article of faith. We want to be able to make our preference known on the basis of evidence and not the smoke and mirrors that sems to be the mainstay of the Highways England approach.
Now we here at WiSBANG prefer the northern route for a couple of very simple reasons: lower levels of noise and pollution. Figure 1 below shows exactly why this is. The prevailing wind, as is easily confirmed by recourse to the UK Met Office is from the south west, at lower levels, within the village there are 5 years-worth of readings that show the wind at ground level comes from the south-south-east - there is a wind-rose in the bottom right hand corner of Fig 1 that shows this clearly.
So, putting the bypass to the south of Winterbourne Stoke is quite simply, on environmental grounds alone, a crass idea for Winterbourne Stoke. The genius who had this brainstorm doubled the environmental impact by stuffing the route midway between Winterbourne Stoke and Berwick St James to the south; doubling the numbers of folk affected by additional road noise at a stroke.
In the case of the northern route, the noise and pollution is helped on its way by the prevailing wind, up into the Salisbury Plain Training Area where it might annoy the odd rabbit that isn't already stone deaf from listening to the Army AS-90s and whose sense of smell has been dulled by screening smokes.
Oddly, Highways England reckon, in the turgid depths of their Technical Appraisal Review that there is little to choose between these two routes on environmental grounds. Really? How can this be so?
Let's be charitable and call it "pulling the wool over people's eyes." This is how it seems to work. Rather than considering the impact of each route just from the A360 to Berwick Down and the people directly affected by it - say 80 or so households in Winterbourne Stoke and 70 or so in Berwick St James, why not consider the whole route from Amesbury to Berwick Down and aggregate all those affected in Amesbury as well (about a 1000) with the numbers from Winterbourne Stoke or Winterbourne Stoke + Berwick St James. Then apply a crude level of granularity, by considering only blocks of 100 houses in your evaluations.
So if you consider the first case and look at each route and those households directly affected within 1km of it, then the northern route affects around 80 households. On the other hand, the southern route affects 80 + 70 = 150 households. So again, no right thinking person would ever opt for the southern route - it affects nearly twice the number of households as does the northern route.
However, if you live in the brave new world of Highways England, the equation is like this: the northern route affects 1000 + 100 (because 80 is nearly 100) = 1100 households. On the other hand, the southern route affects 1000 + 100 (because 80 +70 = 150 which isn't near enough to 200 to be counted as 200) = 1100. QED!
Both routes have the same environmental impact? Well I'm blowed. Highways England have just proved black is white. Whoever came up with this way of 'selling' the bypass should hang their head(s) in shame.
Highways England would clearly like us to take their assessments as articles of faith. Getting any real information out of them is hideously painful and is following an all to predictable course. The rules of the game are simple, the more you already know, the more you will get. You first get a flat denial that information exists. When you apply a little pressure you are told that they wouldn't normally collect that sort of data at this stage . Some may falter now, but don't. Grab them by their metaphorical testicles and squeeze - please do not do so for real, no matter how tempting things get!
The third stage is confession and confession they say is good for the soul - it isn't quite as good for our blood pressure though. They admit to having got the data, but suggest that "you probably wouldn't understand it" and when you point out that "yes you would." the pantomime descends into its final stage of obfuscation. "The data is available, but you have to go through official channels to get it!" But this isn't a game! It is our future!
Well, the channels have been gone through and the silence from Highways England is positively deafening!
Call us cynical, but you get the feeling that the prime driver for route selection, at least as far as Highways England is concerned, is to pick the route that helps them get rid of all the spoil dug out from under Stonehenge for the tunnel and that happens to be the southern route That's the elephant in the room, the spoil. That might go some way to explain why Highways England are reluctant to share information with the public - they might spot the 2 million ton elephant.
Now don't get me wrong, we need a bypass, badly. But not a bypass at any price, not a bypass route that isn't the best option for the most households, not a bypass route that we have to accept as an article of faith. We want to be able to make our preference known on the basis of evidence and not the smoke and mirrors that sems to be the mainstay of the Highways England approach.
Wednesday, 13 April 2016
Those That Walk Amongst Us
We predicted, some time ago, that the announcement that the Government wished to push ahead with improving the A303/A30/A358 corridor to the West Country would flush out every failed and ill-considered proposal that has ever seen the light of day over the last half century or so. Sadly, but all too predictably, we have not been disappointed.
We've said, all along, that our goal is to dual the A303, bypass the beleaguered village of Winterbourne Stoke and improve the traffic situation on local roads, particularly those in and around Shrewton to our north. However, in achieving our goal, our second aim is to ensure the best possible environment for the whole of the World Heritage Site; much of which lies within our Parish boundaries - almost certainly making us the most visited village in England, on a per capita basis, as English Heritage's Stonehenge Visitor's Centre lies within our boundaries. Also lying within our perimeter lies what is arguably the most important feature of the World Heritage Site - not Stonehenge, which is something of a "Jonny Come Lately", but the Longbarrow which pre-dates even the earliest phase of Stonehenge by half a millennium.
Actually, only the left hand side of the Longbarrow lies within the parish of Winterbourne Stoke, the right hand (south eastern) side lies in the parish of Wilsford Cum Lake.
You'd have thought that there would be a common view, locally, to enhance this landscape. Not a bit of it, it seems. Though to be fair, no-one has yet, in recent times, sought the views of the locals in any consistent way. That said, there seem to be several favoured alternatives locally:
A - Any solution that gets rid of the traffic jams;
B - A tunnel of 2.9km;
C - An even longer tunnel;
D - Dualling along the existing route, but sinking it in a ditch;
E - Putting the road way to the north, across the southern edge of the Salisbury Plain training area - to the north of Larkhill;
F - Putting the road south of Amesbury on any one of half a dozen routes.
The first solution (A) is borne of desperation by those who live along the A303 - understandable, but it may not help preserve our heritage. (B) and (C) achieve the aims of dualling the A303 and taking the road out of the World Heritage Site. The longer the tunnel the better, in environmental and heritage terms, but it comes at a cost. Perhaps the biggest advantage is that it would enable ALL vehicles, including most of the coaches used by English Heritage and the risible Land Train, to be excluded from the environment. Of course, you would need to provide some mechanised transport for the disabled and elderly, but every other bugger could walk into the landscape from the Visitor's Centre, Larkhill, Amesbury, etc. The route of the A303 could be returned to a green Bridleway throughout the WHS
(E) is an interesting option. The Armed Forces would kick and scream, but even with the current re-basing exercise, it's hard to justify still needing as much space to exercise our much diminished Forces as we did at the height of WWI and WWII. It would be an inexpensive route, with few landowners to deal with and would remove the A303 from the WHS. Far too sensible an option to be considered.
(F) looks superficially promising, until you get stuck into the detail. There are way too many vested interests that would help kill it off. It may have been a viable option 50 years ago when the idea of improving things was first mooted, but the world has moved on - unlike many of the proponents of this schemes.
Finally, we have option (D). About the only positive thing that can be said about this option is that it is cheap and cheerful. It does nothing to enhance the environment of the World Heritage site - and here it is important to stress one thing - whether or not the landscape around Stonehenge remains as a World Heritage site is immaterial to the argument of how the area is crossed. It comes down to whether WE as a region, WE as a nation, want to leave something valuable to posterity - or simply want to bung in a cheap and nasty road and to hell with the consequences. Those that are pushing for this option are doing so on the basis of simple cost (certainly not cost in the broader sense, or else they would soon realise how utterly indefensible their position is).
So, do they have a point when it comes to pounds shillings and pence? Lets look at just a couple of hard facts. Even the 2.9 km tunnel is going to cost at least £2billion. Now that is a big number and I can't imagine what it would look like as a pile of fivers, but is it really excessive in the greater scheme of things? Well let's compare it with something else equally controversial.
Now I could choose the cost of membership of the EU as the comparator, but the booklet of facts on staying in the EU, or leaving, dropped through the door the other day and when I opened this piece of Tory propaganda, I found all the facts were missing from my copy - and the same was true in every other copy I've looked at, so that isn't going to be overly helpful. What else might be a good comparator? Something else that is expensive and controversial - like the UK's Foreign Aid budget.
In 2013, the UK spent 0.7% of GDP, £11.4bn on foreign aid - money spent that does not benefit the UK directly and some would argue is often misspent, maladministered and way to much. We can point the finger of blame at the Lib-Dems for pushing the 0.7% of GDP target in Parliament. The Tories and Labour seem happy with the spend, through the Greens would like to increase it to 1% of GDP. UKIP on the other hand, want to reduce the Foreign Aid budget to 0.2% of GDP and spend the rest within the UK. In a time of austerity, it's hard to justify spending anything not of direct benefit to UK citizens, but I digress...
Back to a fact or two. Back in 2014, we gave India £279 million in Foreign Aid and that was 40% down on 2011. India has its own space program, it has a planned mission to Mars, and the whole program costs £500 million to run per year. So, in bald terms, the money we put into the Indian economy was equivalent to more than 50% of the cost of their entire space program or could have funded 7-8 missions to Mars. We may have been funding it entirely prior to 2011.
Now DfID will argue that the money was targeted on things the Indian's wouldn't have spent their own money on anyway, but the bottom line was that India had a choice on how to spend its money and chose a space program over health and education. I'm sure a little digging would uncover even more egregious examples, but this one will do for the moment.
So, the 2.9 km Stonehenge tunnel option might cost £2bn at December 2014 prices, but over the 40 years (more like 50, but lets be conservative) that there has been talk of improving the A303, we've probably ploughed a demonstrably un-needed £11.6 billion into Indian Foreign Aid. During the same period, we've probably ploughed close to half a trillion pounds into Foreign Aid in total.
Well, there you have it. A one-off spend of £2bn on a tunnel for Stonehenge is peanuts in the greater scheme of things and can easily be afforded by cutting the Foreign Aid budget from those countries, like India, that can well-afford to look after their own population's interests, but choose to ignore them. Of course, digressing again, there are real emergencies and situations that call for Foreign Aid and I wouldn't want to stop that, but we need to spend more wisely.
We have those that walk amongst us who believe a £2 billion tunnel is an extravagance, whilst their political bed-fellows were responsible for the concept of blowing 0.7% of GDP on Foreign Aid without any clear demonstration of need. I would beg you to treat these people gently; their sanity is surely in question.
We've said, all along, that our goal is to dual the A303, bypass the beleaguered village of Winterbourne Stoke and improve the traffic situation on local roads, particularly those in and around Shrewton to our north. However, in achieving our goal, our second aim is to ensure the best possible environment for the whole of the World Heritage Site; much of which lies within our Parish boundaries - almost certainly making us the most visited village in England, on a per capita basis, as English Heritage's Stonehenge Visitor's Centre lies within our boundaries. Also lying within our perimeter lies what is arguably the most important feature of the World Heritage Site - not Stonehenge, which is something of a "Jonny Come Lately", but the Longbarrow which pre-dates even the earliest phase of Stonehenge by half a millennium.
Actually, only the left hand side of the Longbarrow lies within the parish of Winterbourne Stoke, the right hand (south eastern) side lies in the parish of Wilsford Cum Lake.
You'd have thought that there would be a common view, locally, to enhance this landscape. Not a bit of it, it seems. Though to be fair, no-one has yet, in recent times, sought the views of the locals in any consistent way. That said, there seem to be several favoured alternatives locally:
A - Any solution that gets rid of the traffic jams;
B - A tunnel of 2.9km;
C - An even longer tunnel;
D - Dualling along the existing route, but sinking it in a ditch;
E - Putting the road way to the north, across the southern edge of the Salisbury Plain training area - to the north of Larkhill;
F - Putting the road south of Amesbury on any one of half a dozen routes.
The first solution (A) is borne of desperation by those who live along the A303 - understandable, but it may not help preserve our heritage. (B) and (C) achieve the aims of dualling the A303 and taking the road out of the World Heritage Site. The longer the tunnel the better, in environmental and heritage terms, but it comes at a cost. Perhaps the biggest advantage is that it would enable ALL vehicles, including most of the coaches used by English Heritage and the risible Land Train, to be excluded from the environment. Of course, you would need to provide some mechanised transport for the disabled and elderly, but every other bugger could walk into the landscape from the Visitor's Centre, Larkhill, Amesbury, etc. The route of the A303 could be returned to a green Bridleway throughout the WHS
(E) is an interesting option. The Armed Forces would kick and scream, but even with the current re-basing exercise, it's hard to justify still needing as much space to exercise our much diminished Forces as we did at the height of WWI and WWII. It would be an inexpensive route, with few landowners to deal with and would remove the A303 from the WHS. Far too sensible an option to be considered.
(F) looks superficially promising, until you get stuck into the detail. There are way too many vested interests that would help kill it off. It may have been a viable option 50 years ago when the idea of improving things was first mooted, but the world has moved on - unlike many of the proponents of this schemes.
Finally, we have option (D). About the only positive thing that can be said about this option is that it is cheap and cheerful. It does nothing to enhance the environment of the World Heritage site - and here it is important to stress one thing - whether or not the landscape around Stonehenge remains as a World Heritage site is immaterial to the argument of how the area is crossed. It comes down to whether WE as a region, WE as a nation, want to leave something valuable to posterity - or simply want to bung in a cheap and nasty road and to hell with the consequences. Those that are pushing for this option are doing so on the basis of simple cost (certainly not cost in the broader sense, or else they would soon realise how utterly indefensible their position is).
So, do they have a point when it comes to pounds shillings and pence? Lets look at just a couple of hard facts. Even the 2.9 km tunnel is going to cost at least £2billion. Now that is a big number and I can't imagine what it would look like as a pile of fivers, but is it really excessive in the greater scheme of things? Well let's compare it with something else equally controversial.
Now I could choose the cost of membership of the EU as the comparator, but the booklet of facts on staying in the EU, or leaving, dropped through the door the other day and when I opened this piece of Tory propaganda, I found all the facts were missing from my copy - and the same was true in every other copy I've looked at, so that isn't going to be overly helpful. What else might be a good comparator? Something else that is expensive and controversial - like the UK's Foreign Aid budget.
In 2013, the UK spent 0.7% of GDP, £11.4bn on foreign aid - money spent that does not benefit the UK directly and some would argue is often misspent, maladministered and way to much. We can point the finger of blame at the Lib-Dems for pushing the 0.7% of GDP target in Parliament. The Tories and Labour seem happy with the spend, through the Greens would like to increase it to 1% of GDP. UKIP on the other hand, want to reduce the Foreign Aid budget to 0.2% of GDP and spend the rest within the UK. In a time of austerity, it's hard to justify spending anything not of direct benefit to UK citizens, but I digress...
Back to a fact or two. Back in 2014, we gave India £279 million in Foreign Aid and that was 40% down on 2011. India has its own space program, it has a planned mission to Mars, and the whole program costs £500 million to run per year. So, in bald terms, the money we put into the Indian economy was equivalent to more than 50% of the cost of their entire space program or could have funded 7-8 missions to Mars. We may have been funding it entirely prior to 2011.
Now DfID will argue that the money was targeted on things the Indian's wouldn't have spent their own money on anyway, but the bottom line was that India had a choice on how to spend its money and chose a space program over health and education. I'm sure a little digging would uncover even more egregious examples, but this one will do for the moment.
So, the 2.9 km Stonehenge tunnel option might cost £2bn at December 2014 prices, but over the 40 years (more like 50, but lets be conservative) that there has been talk of improving the A303, we've probably ploughed a demonstrably un-needed £11.6 billion into Indian Foreign Aid. During the same period, we've probably ploughed close to half a trillion pounds into Foreign Aid in total.
Well, there you have it. A one-off spend of £2bn on a tunnel for Stonehenge is peanuts in the greater scheme of things and can easily be afforded by cutting the Foreign Aid budget from those countries, like India, that can well-afford to look after their own population's interests, but choose to ignore them. Of course, digressing again, there are real emergencies and situations that call for Foreign Aid and I wouldn't want to stop that, but we need to spend more wisely.
We have those that walk amongst us who believe a £2 billion tunnel is an extravagance, whilst their political bed-fellows were responsible for the concept of blowing 0.7% of GDP on Foreign Aid without any clear demonstration of need. I would beg you to treat these people gently; their sanity is surely in question.
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Stonehenge: A Few Scary Moments On The A303 At Stonehenge Bottom
Earlier today, I went for a bike ride to clear my head and for the last part, I rode north-eastwards along Byway 12, to the A303. Crossing the A303 is never easy and you need to have your wits about you. Putting it bluntly, when you cross the A303 here, you have to remember that the great travelling public aren't really thinking that they might encounter people by the roadside. Why on earth would there be people close to one of the wonders of the World; I ask you?
As a consequence of this, anyone attempting to cross the A303 at Byway 12, Byway 11 or Stonehenge Bottom has to regard themselves as a slice of ham about to be sandwiched between two pieces of steel-reinforced "bread" with a closing speed in excess of 120 mph. Get it wrong and it is going to hurt - briefly, bloodily and almost certainly, finally.
At Byway 12, you have to wait until you can't see vehicles in either direction to have enough time to stroll, not run, across the A303. Running isn't advised, as if you were to fall, you simply wouldn't have time to pick yourself up before the Grim Sandwich Maker appeared. On quiet days, you might have to wait a couple of minutes for a safe gap - there aren't many quiet days any more! On a bad day, you might have to wait 10-15 minutes or even longer to cross in reasonable safety, or simply give it up as a bad job and back track. Too many lose patience and take silly risks...
Today wasn't too bad and I was safely across in under a minute. I rode up to the A344 then onto the temporary permissive path between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom. As I crested the ridge down to Stonehenge Bottom I was confronted by a veritable gaggle of cyclists heading down towards the A303.
They were a nice friendly bunch and I explained that I was part of STAG and what we were about and please could I take photos of them if they were trying to cross. They were happy for me to do so, so here is a short vignette of what happened next.
The thought of them all trying to cross made my blood run a bit cold as the traffic here is gravity-assisted in both directions and the westbound traffic is still trying to settle scores with other drivers from the 2 lanes into 1 section of the A303, a few hundred meters to the east.
A few cyclists at the front of the group spotted a small gap and either ran or rode across.
Most of them didn't get the opportunity and there was steady stream of fast-moving traffic in both directions on what is, at this point a Clearway, not that anyone gives a tuppeny-damn about the Highway Code these days!
They waited, and waited, and waited.
When a westbound gap appeared they moved forward, then back again as it disappeared.
One of them made it to the central strip and an eastbound driver in a grey car slowed and stopped. Remember, it is a Clearway - no stopping.
The cyclists, not quite sure what to do now, all started to move off the verge towards the centre of the A303, but did so very hesitantly. The westbound traffic was still thundering past them with mere inches to spare. It couldn't have been a very pleasant experience.
White van man from Black Hole Storage Removals clearly didn't give a damn and went roaring through and this carried on for a while until another grey car stopped on the westbound carriageway.
and finally, the whole group got across safely.
It could so easily have been very different. But why are things so dangerous?
Well, the people who control the World Heritage Site have a policy of making Stonehenge a more bike (and horse and pedestrian) friendly place. This seemed to be borne-out in the plans for the new visitor's centre submitted by English Heritage. However, despite their intentions and despite planning conditions that mandated a whole raft of measures that would have improved things for cyclists, English Heritage have singularly failed to deliver.
One of the few things that was largely outside the control of English Heritage was an improved crossing at Stonehenge Bottom. On the one hand, increased usage of the crossing point was anticipated by all parties after the closure of the A344, hence the planning requiremnt. However, a spoke was put in the works by the Highways Agency who produced a report - in the way Government Agencies do when they don't want to take action. The conclusion of this report reads as follows:
As a consequence of this, anyone attempting to cross the A303 at Byway 12, Byway 11 or Stonehenge Bottom has to regard themselves as a slice of ham about to be sandwiched between two pieces of steel-reinforced "bread" with a closing speed in excess of 120 mph. Get it wrong and it is going to hurt - briefly, bloodily and almost certainly, finally.
At Byway 12, you have to wait until you can't see vehicles in either direction to have enough time to stroll, not run, across the A303. Running isn't advised, as if you were to fall, you simply wouldn't have time to pick yourself up before the Grim Sandwich Maker appeared. On quiet days, you might have to wait a couple of minutes for a safe gap - there aren't many quiet days any more! On a bad day, you might have to wait 10-15 minutes or even longer to cross in reasonable safety, or simply give it up as a bad job and back track. Too many lose patience and take silly risks...
Today wasn't too bad and I was safely across in under a minute. I rode up to the A344 then onto the temporary permissive path between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom. As I crested the ridge down to Stonehenge Bottom I was confronted by a veritable gaggle of cyclists heading down towards the A303.
The thought of them all trying to cross made my blood run a bit cold as the traffic here is gravity-assisted in both directions and the westbound traffic is still trying to settle scores with other drivers from the 2 lanes into 1 section of the A303, a few hundred meters to the east.
A few cyclists at the front of the group spotted a small gap and either ran or rode across.
They waited, and waited, and waited.
The cyclists, not quite sure what to do now, all started to move off the verge towards the centre of the A303, but did so very hesitantly. The westbound traffic was still thundering past them with mere inches to spare. It couldn't have been a very pleasant experience.
Well, the people who control the World Heritage Site have a policy of making Stonehenge a more bike (and horse and pedestrian) friendly place. This seemed to be borne-out in the plans for the new visitor's centre submitted by English Heritage. However, despite their intentions and despite planning conditions that mandated a whole raft of measures that would have improved things for cyclists, English Heritage have singularly failed to deliver.
One of the few things that was largely outside the control of English Heritage was an improved crossing at Stonehenge Bottom. On the one hand, increased usage of the crossing point was anticipated by all parties after the closure of the A344, hence the planning requiremnt. However, a spoke was put in the works by the Highways Agency who produced a report - in the way Government Agencies do when they don't want to take action. The conclusion of this report reads as follows:
"It is the designer’s view that the current usage of this crossing by pedestrians or by cyclists, on either the
A303 or the A344 routes, does not justify the increased risk to motorised users on the A303 of providing
refuge islands for this crossing. However it is felt that the opportunity to relocate the crossing to the best
location position for NMU visibility and to reduce the crossing width is justified and should be taken.
In taking this view, the designer is taking note of RSA team preference, based on pedestrian rather than cycle use of the crossing, of the do minimum crossing type. The designer is also influenced by the fact that this is far from being the only single carriageway rural at grade crossing of the A303 with no specific NMU facilities, including equestrian crossings.
The proximity of this crossing to the Stonehenge World Heritage site does not currently attract to it significant NMU usage. It is therefore felt that neither the existing usage of the crossing or the last five year’s accident records warrant a different approach here to that taken at other similar crossing locations where the balance of risks between NMU and Motorised Users, and hence the actual overall risk, dictates the level of provision made.
It is therefore recommended that the measures in Option 4 proposals, with the refuge islands removed but all the other measures retained is adopted.
A future scheme for reviewing the crossing arrangements needs to be submitted and approved. The scheme shall have regard to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD 19/03 Stage 4 Safety Audit 12 and 36 month post scheme recommendations for any remedial action.
It is felt that the extensive investigation already under taken into the examination of the safety of and the changes to the crossing here proposed satisfies the requirements of the planning condition."
Just for the record, NMUs are non-motorised units - pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Cutting out all the crap, what they are actually saying is that the body-count at Stonehenge Bottom is too low to warrant making anything more than superficial changes. However, they go on to suggest that a safety audit at 12 and 36 months might change things if the body count increases.
I don't suppose the contribution by Wiltshire Council helped much either:
Did you spot it? Yes, that's right. Most pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders arriving at Stonehenge don't pitch up at the visitor's centre, as there is (still) no provision for them. They may arrive from east or west, north or south, but we suspect that few, if any, will be invited to take part in the annual visitor survey, conducted for English Heritage by TNS.
In taking this view, the designer is taking note of RSA team preference, based on pedestrian rather than cycle use of the crossing, of the do minimum crossing type. The designer is also influenced by the fact that this is far from being the only single carriageway rural at grade crossing of the A303 with no specific NMU facilities, including equestrian crossings.
The proximity of this crossing to the Stonehenge World Heritage site does not currently attract to it significant NMU usage. It is therefore felt that neither the existing usage of the crossing or the last five year’s accident records warrant a different approach here to that taken at other similar crossing locations where the balance of risks between NMU and Motorised Users, and hence the actual overall risk, dictates the level of provision made.
It is therefore recommended that the measures in Option 4 proposals, with the refuge islands removed but all the other measures retained is adopted.
A future scheme for reviewing the crossing arrangements needs to be submitted and approved. The scheme shall have regard to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD 19/03 Stage 4 Safety Audit 12 and 36 month post scheme recommendations for any remedial action.
It is felt that the extensive investigation already under taken into the examination of the safety of and the changes to the crossing here proposed satisfies the requirements of the planning condition."
Just for the record, NMUs are non-motorised units - pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Cutting out all the crap, what they are actually saying is that the body-count at Stonehenge Bottom is too low to warrant making anything more than superficial changes. However, they go on to suggest that a safety audit at 12 and 36 months might change things if the body count increases.
I don't suppose the contribution by Wiltshire Council helped much either:
"...that in relation to cycle usage their
preferred route between the A344 to the north and Amesbury for cyclists was via the countess roundabout
underpass crossing of the A303 and than via Lark Hill." (all the typos and grammatical errors are courtesy of the Highways Agency!)
As usual with Wiltshire Council when it comes to anything in the south of the county - thumbs up bums and brains in neutral all the way. No-one in their right minds, who knew about the local area, would ever choose to get from the centre of Amesbury to Stonehenge by heading north, through the scrofulous Countess Roundabout underpass (on foot - as cycling is forbidden on this bit of the cycle route), up Countess Road, being harassed by rat-running motorists, then head west to Larkhill along the rat-run of choice for coaches and HGVs, before eventually getting to the northern end of Byway 12.
Most sensible folk will simply head out to West Amesbury, up to the A303 and then to Stonehenge Bottom and the A344 - no need to ride with high speed traffic at all - just dice with death crossing the A303. That's what they've always done, that's what they were doing today and that's what they will do until the A303 issue is resolved once and for all.
Of course, there was a fall-back plan to monitor the situation. Here it is. Read it carefully and spot the flaw:
As usual with Wiltshire Council when it comes to anything in the south of the county - thumbs up bums and brains in neutral all the way. No-one in their right minds, who knew about the local area, would ever choose to get from the centre of Amesbury to Stonehenge by heading north, through the scrofulous Countess Roundabout underpass (on foot - as cycling is forbidden on this bit of the cycle route), up Countess Road, being harassed by rat-running motorists, then head west to Larkhill along the rat-run of choice for coaches and HGVs, before eventually getting to the northern end of Byway 12.
Most sensible folk will simply head out to West Amesbury, up to the A303 and then to Stonehenge Bottom and the A344 - no need to ride with high speed traffic at all - just dice with death crossing the A303. That's what they've always done, that's what they were doing today and that's what they will do until the A303 issue is resolved once and for all.
Of course, there was a fall-back plan to monitor the situation. Here it is. Read it carefully and spot the flaw:
STONEHENGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Planning Application Reference S/2009/1527
Scheme required under planning condition 27 for reviewing pedestrian and cycle route access arrangements along the whole of the A344, and crossing arrangements at the A303 (Stonehenge Bottom)
Following approval of the details of the pedestrian and cycle route access arrangements along the whole of the A344 and crossing arrangements at the A303 (Stonehenge Bottom), English Heritage will co-operate with the Local Highways Authority, Highways Agency and the Local Planning Authority in reviewing the arrangements. In particular, should a formal Stage 4 Safety Audit be carried out, and any recommendations for remedial action be made in the 12 and 36 month Stage 4 Reports submitted to English Heritage and the other organisations, then any required remedial works, and arrangements for their implementation and funding, will be considered and agreed between English Heritage, the Local Highways Authority, the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency, as appropriate.
In addition, English Heritage will carry out the following:
Scheme required under planning condition 27 for reviewing pedestrian and cycle route access arrangements along the whole of the A344, and crossing arrangements at the A303 (Stonehenge Bottom)
Following approval of the details of the pedestrian and cycle route access arrangements along the whole of the A344 and crossing arrangements at the A303 (Stonehenge Bottom), English Heritage will co-operate with the Local Highways Authority, Highways Agency and the Local Planning Authority in reviewing the arrangements. In particular, should a formal Stage 4 Safety Audit be carried out, and any recommendations for remedial action be made in the 12 and 36 month Stage 4 Reports submitted to English Heritage and the other organisations, then any required remedial works, and arrangements for their implementation and funding, will be considered and agreed between English Heritage, the Local Highways Authority, the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency, as appropriate.
In addition, English Heritage will carry out the following:
-
- Incorporate questions about the pedestrian and cycle access into the annual
visitor survey conducted by the travel and tourism department of market
research company TNS. This will comprise face to face interviews with 180
individuals during the months of July, August and September. Likely questions
include: whether people have accessed the site on foot or on bicycle, and, if so,
where they have travelled from, how satisfactory they have found the route and
where they are travelling onto.
-
- As part of the ongoing operational management of the site English Heritage staff
will, as a matter of course, record, report to the relevant authorities and, if
appropriate, take any necessary action in respect of any incidents or accidents
along the route of the A344 between Airman's Corner and Stonehenge Bottom.
English Heritage 26th April 2012
During my many visits to the WHS this July August and September I've never seen anyone with a clipboard interviewing pedestrians, cyclists and the two riders I have seen, nor have I ever been approached. Now that's interesting, if true because this safety audit is meant to be looking at the safety of crossing the A303 by any and all users, not just English Heritage's paying customers.
As I say, we don't know for certain that this is the case, but I feel an FOIA request ,or two, coming on!
Friday, 25 July 2014
Four Thousand Holes in Blackburn Lancashire, Four Hundred Cameras Around Shrewton, Wiltshire
I do have to apologise to the memory of the late and great John Lennon for abusing the lyrics of "A Day in the Life" but I simply couldn't resist drawing the analogy.
Yesterday, the Salisbury Journal published a very interesting article on the A303 entitled simply: "A303 traffic survey to be carried out"
Basically, the story explains that Atkins, the traffic management consultancy will be placing number plate recognition cameras along the A303 and on surrounding roads as part of a scheme to track vehicle movements on the traffic-choked highway.The Journal article claims that there will be hundreds of these cameras on the surrounding roads, but we suspect that this might be something of an exaggeration and that perhaps 10-20 NPR cameras might be closer to the mark.
Winterbourne Stoke resident, Chairman of the parish council and Wiltshire councillor Ian West observed: "Residents of Shrewton believe the speed and volume of traffic in Shrewton has been made worse by the closure of the A344.
One of the main concerns expressed by local residents is the speed and volume of traffic, it is quoted as one of the main safety factors which people see as a barrier to travelling around their communities on foot or by bicycle or to letting children travel independently. This has very much affected the quality of life in Shrewton.
We very much look forward to the results of the Atkins survey because the increase in traffic is becoming unbearable in Shrewton and the surrounding villages both sides of the A303.”
Of course, it isn't just Shrewton or indeed the residents here in Winterbourne Stoke who are suffering as a result of the A344 closure. We (WiSBAng) and the Stonhenge Traffic Action Group (STAG), regularly hear of problems being caused as far afield as Berwick St James, Larkhill, Durrington, Bulford and Amesbury.
Although we wholeheartedly welcome this new initiative and data-gathering exercise, we feel duty-bound to point out something that some might think verges on negligence on the part of Wiltshire Council. Over the last two decades and more, every bit of traffic modelling undertaken on the A303 corridor, some of it commissioned by Wiltshire Council, predicted that there would be traffic chaos in the surrounding villages if the A344 were to be closed BEFORE the A303 was upgraded. For years, Wiltshire Council resisted the closure of the A344 on those grounds, then in 2010/2011 they did an about face and sided with English Heritage in pushing for the closure.
Surprise, surprise. The A344 was closed and all the traffic models were proved correct.
Now any competent authority would have undertaken a survey such as that being carried out by Atkins between Monday, August 4th and Sunday, August 10th prior to closing the A344, then do the same again after the closure to ensure the changes had had no adverse effects and to be able to quantify the changes with hard data. That would have been far too sensible and of course it might have run the risk of exposing, in irrefutable terms, that a mistake had been made in closing the A344 prematurely. That would never do, would it?
As it is, when Atkins report their findings we will know how bad the situation on all these local roads is, but in the absence of knowing what they were like in quantitative terms before the A344 closure, it is impossible to say how much worse they have become. We can make some estimates based on earlier surveys, but on fewer roads, using somewhat different methodologies; that's far from ideal.
Yesterday, the Salisbury Journal published a very interesting article on the A303 entitled simply: "A303 traffic survey to be carried out"
Basically, the story explains that Atkins, the traffic management consultancy will be placing number plate recognition cameras along the A303 and on surrounding roads as part of a scheme to track vehicle movements on the traffic-choked highway.The Journal article claims that there will be hundreds of these cameras on the surrounding roads, but we suspect that this might be something of an exaggeration and that perhaps 10-20 NPR cameras might be closer to the mark.
Winterbourne Stoke resident, Chairman of the parish council and Wiltshire councillor Ian West observed: "Residents of Shrewton believe the speed and volume of traffic in Shrewton has been made worse by the closure of the A344.
One of the main concerns expressed by local residents is the speed and volume of traffic, it is quoted as one of the main safety factors which people see as a barrier to travelling around their communities on foot or by bicycle or to letting children travel independently. This has very much affected the quality of life in Shrewton.
We very much look forward to the results of the Atkins survey because the increase in traffic is becoming unbearable in Shrewton and the surrounding villages both sides of the A303.”
Of course, it isn't just Shrewton or indeed the residents here in Winterbourne Stoke who are suffering as a result of the A344 closure. We (WiSBAng) and the Stonhenge Traffic Action Group (STAG), regularly hear of problems being caused as far afield as Berwick St James, Larkhill, Durrington, Bulford and Amesbury.
Although we wholeheartedly welcome this new initiative and data-gathering exercise, we feel duty-bound to point out something that some might think verges on negligence on the part of Wiltshire Council. Over the last two decades and more, every bit of traffic modelling undertaken on the A303 corridor, some of it commissioned by Wiltshire Council, predicted that there would be traffic chaos in the surrounding villages if the A344 were to be closed BEFORE the A303 was upgraded. For years, Wiltshire Council resisted the closure of the A344 on those grounds, then in 2010/2011 they did an about face and sided with English Heritage in pushing for the closure.
Surprise, surprise. The A344 was closed and all the traffic models were proved correct.
Now any competent authority would have undertaken a survey such as that being carried out by Atkins between Monday, August 4th and Sunday, August 10th prior to closing the A344, then do the same again after the closure to ensure the changes had had no adverse effects and to be able to quantify the changes with hard data. That would have been far too sensible and of course it might have run the risk of exposing, in irrefutable terms, that a mistake had been made in closing the A344 prematurely. That would never do, would it?
As it is, when Atkins report their findings we will know how bad the situation on all these local roads is, but in the absence of knowing what they were like in quantitative terms before the A344 closure, it is impossible to say how much worse they have become. We can make some estimates based on earlier surveys, but on fewer roads, using somewhat different methodologies; that's far from ideal.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Has the Highway Agency Lied To The Public on Twitter?
Back in May, we raised a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Highways Agency on the "What Do They Know" website. As we've said before, we think this is the best way of raising FOIA requests as it usually acts as a spur to keeping the recipients honest and they usually take a bit more care in answering, as mistakes are in the public domain and they risk being humiliated by a public correction, or having downright lies exposed. This doesn't seem to work in the case of the Highways Agency.
We asked them to list the times and dates of apparent failures of the traffic camera on the A303 at Solstice Park, Amesbury, as it seemed that the camera was frequently out of service when the traffic levels on the A303 were greatest. Rather than raise this as an unfounded suspicion, we wanted to have factual information (as it turned out, our suspicions about camera failure were unfounded, but we haven't yet established if the camera is ever deliberately turned off!).
Imagine our surprise when we received the following response:
...I refer to your request under the above legislation for information about failure of traffic cameras on the A303.
I can confirm that we do not hold the information. We believe that, as this is a safety camera operated by Wiltshire Police, the information you require may be held by Wiltshire Police. If you have not already done so, you may wish to contact them...
Now, we knew that this was complete cock-and-bull, but we played the game and re-sent the FOIA request to Wiltshire Police, who responded as we expected, pointing out that the police unit responsible for static cameras closed in 2010. So, back to the Highways Agency we went and asked for an internal review of their original answer.
This time, we got the following response and somewhat half-hearted apology:
"...I am writing to confirm that I have now completed an internal review of our original response to you, which you requested on 30th May.
It appears that we were mistaken in our first response to you and that the Highways Agency has responsibility for the camera in question. Please accept my sincere apologies for the misinformation and any subsequent inconvenience this has caused..."
This isn't the first time that they have answered our FOIA's incorrectly - the level of incompetence for a Government Agency is simply astounding.
Over the last few days, in the run-up to Summer Solstice 2014, we at STAG have been monitoring traffic levels on the A303 and one of the strands of this is to monitor, when possible, the Solstice Park camera.
From midweek, the camera has been out of service and it was definitely out of service last night, showing the typical failure notice:
Imagine our surprise, when we awoke very early on Solstice morning, to see the following Twitter-feed from the Highways Agency:
Poetic, wonderful, atmospheric, the Amesbury webcam was clearly fixed in time for the Solstice dawn. We are sure the English Heretics would have been delighted by the plug.
Well, actually, no. The camera was still unavailable the second the tweet was published. So, are the Highways Agency lying through their teeth about watching the sunrise through the Amesbury webcam, or, are they are lying through their teeth about the camera being available and deliberately suppressing the feed?
Superficially, and in the greater scheme of things, if the Highways Agency are lying, this might seem a fairly trivial untruth. However, it is information, being put in the public domain on behalf of the Government. In effect, if true, it's the Government misleading the people. If they can't be trusted over something as trivial as a webcam feed, how can they be trusted when it comes to something more important regarding the A303 - the current feasibility study for improving it for instance?
Let's just say we are unhappy, a wee bit vexed.
Agencies like the Highways Agency should be answerable to the people and we hope that our MP, John Glen, will seek answers from the Highways Agency on our behalf.
We asked them to list the times and dates of apparent failures of the traffic camera on the A303 at Solstice Park, Amesbury, as it seemed that the camera was frequently out of service when the traffic levels on the A303 were greatest. Rather than raise this as an unfounded suspicion, we wanted to have factual information (as it turned out, our suspicions about camera failure were unfounded, but we haven't yet established if the camera is ever deliberately turned off!).
Imagine our surprise when we received the following response:
...I refer to your request under the above legislation for information about failure of traffic cameras on the A303.
I can confirm that we do not hold the information. We believe that, as this is a safety camera operated by Wiltshire Police, the information you require may be held by Wiltshire Police. If you have not already done so, you may wish to contact them...
Now, we knew that this was complete cock-and-bull, but we played the game and re-sent the FOIA request to Wiltshire Police, who responded as we expected, pointing out that the police unit responsible for static cameras closed in 2010. So, back to the Highways Agency we went and asked for an internal review of their original answer.
This time, we got the following response and somewhat half-hearted apology:
"...I am writing to confirm that I have now completed an internal review of our original response to you, which you requested on 30th May.
It appears that we were mistaken in our first response to you and that the Highways Agency has responsibility for the camera in question. Please accept my sincere apologies for the misinformation and any subsequent inconvenience this has caused..."
This isn't the first time that they have answered our FOIA's incorrectly - the level of incompetence for a Government Agency is simply astounding.
Over the last few days, in the run-up to Summer Solstice 2014, we at STAG have been monitoring traffic levels on the A303 and one of the strands of this is to monitor, when possible, the Solstice Park camera.
From midweek, the camera has been out of service and it was definitely out of service last night, showing the typical failure notice:
Imagine our surprise, when we awoke very early on Solstice morning, to see the following Twitter-feed from the Highways Agency:
Poetic, wonderful, atmospheric, the Amesbury webcam was clearly fixed in time for the Solstice dawn. We are sure the English Heretics would have been delighted by the plug.
Well, actually, no. The camera was still unavailable the second the tweet was published. So, are the Highways Agency lying through their teeth about watching the sunrise through the Amesbury webcam, or, are they are lying through their teeth about the camera being available and deliberately suppressing the feed?
Superficially, and in the greater scheme of things, if the Highways Agency are lying, this might seem a fairly trivial untruth. However, it is information, being put in the public domain on behalf of the Government. In effect, if true, it's the Government misleading the people. If they can't be trusted over something as trivial as a webcam feed, how can they be trusted when it comes to something more important regarding the A303 - the current feasibility study for improving it for instance?
Let's just say we are unhappy, a wee bit vexed.
Agencies like the Highways Agency should be answerable to the people and we hope that our MP, John Glen, will seek answers from the Highways Agency on our behalf.
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Stagman - The Birth of Your Everyday Super Hero
Well, what a day Friday turned out to be. STAG operatives were racing around the rat-runs of south Wiltshire getting the lost, confused, re-routed or merely befuddled to sign up to the Stonehenge Traffic Action Group petition when they noticed something going on. If the truth be told, they were actually progressing at the pace of a super-annuated, arthritic snail, in the vicinity of the Salisbury road north from Amesbury towards its junction with the A3028 Double Hedges road in Bulford, when one of our more active supporters noticed the traffic was moving slower even than he was.
The A303 was at its usual Friday best - allowing plenty of time for casual photos,
The A345 through Amesbury was backed up from the Countess Roundabout who knows how far back south. I do hope some of these poor unfortunates took time out from the jam to pop in to see our friends at One Brown Cow (and NO, we are not on commission from them - we just feel that one good turn deserves another!)
More and more traffic was opting to leave the A303 and try and head north up the Salisbury Road, then to cut back west through Larkhill and Shrewton...
...but it was going nowhere fast.
Our budding superhero - for that is what he was to become(at least in the eyes of the disgruntled motorists, bus-drivers and others stuck on the hill) decided to find out what on earth had snarled up yet another road around Stonehenge. This time, it turned out to be a set of 4-way traffic lights at the end of Stonehenge Road. They were ostensibly there to ensure safe passage around the road works EXCEPT, in true British fashion, there was little evidence of road work, no road works in progress and no road workers in sight. In fact, there was little evidence that anyone had done anything other than erect the traffic light (I'd been through earlier in the week and there was bugger-all evidence of anything going on then either!)
It was then our superhero, let's call him STAGMAN, leapt into action (Err, those who have met him, know that leaping isn't quite his forte, but hell, I'm telling the story and you've got to have a stag that leaps - right!).
He contacted Wiltshire Constabulary, nice chaps and as it turns out, chaps who, just like Stagman, have an abundance of common sense. "Nous" is what what we call it in Lancashire - a rare commodity there or anywhere else,; but there was a lot of it around on Friday. Stagman explained the problem, the police listened, Stagman suggested a course of action and the police did not disagree.
So Stagman - took down the traffic lights, removed the roadworks - just like that. Within a few short minutes...
...all the traffic jam had gone - and Stagman could relax; a job well done.
So to anyone who might think STAG and WiSBAng are just a lot of hot air - carry on, think what you will, but Stagman demonstrated on Friday that we are practically-minded as well and will get things done.
As for Stagman, well who knows. We tried to get a photo of him on Friday and failed. He promised one yesterday, but think he was teasing us. Then, we heard rumours that he was taking this super hero stuff all very seriously and had gone out and got himself a costume - as that is what all super heroes do. We despatched our trusty photographer to Shrewton this morning and managed to snap the following from a hedgerow in one of the brighter interludes between rain showers:
We thought the beard was an especially nice touch - and using the road-kill fox to make it was absolutely inspired. We would have shown you a full body shot except this blog is rated for under 18s. Let's just say he wasn't wearing a suit...
...but those who have been round the Longbarrow Roundabout this morning will have noticed the festering badger has disappeared.
If anyone manages to get a better photo of Stagman, preferably in action, before Christmas, there is a nice bottle of wine on offer!
The A303 was at its usual Friday best - allowing plenty of time for casual photos,
More and more traffic was opting to leave the A303 and try and head north up the Salisbury Road, then to cut back west through Larkhill and Shrewton...
It was then our superhero, let's call him STAGMAN, leapt into action (Err, those who have met him, know that leaping isn't quite his forte, but hell, I'm telling the story and you've got to have a stag that leaps - right!).
So Stagman - took down the traffic lights, removed the roadworks - just like that. Within a few short minutes...
As for Stagman, well who knows. We tried to get a photo of him on Friday and failed. He promised one yesterday, but think he was teasing us. Then, we heard rumours that he was taking this super hero stuff all very seriously and had gone out and got himself a costume - as that is what all super heroes do. We despatched our trusty photographer to Shrewton this morning and managed to snap the following from a hedgerow in one of the brighter interludes between rain showers:
...but those who have been round the Longbarrow Roundabout this morning will have noticed the festering badger has disappeared.
If anyone manages to get a better photo of Stagman, preferably in action, before Christmas, there is a nice bottle of wine on offer!
Saturday, 26 October 2013
One Brown Cow Passes Cars on the A303
...well, not quite, but I just got some really useful information from One Brown Cow (@onebrowncow - website onebrowncow.co.uk) on Twitter.
One Brown Cow is a boutique gift shop specialising in quality jewellery, designer and contemporary gifts at 40 High Street, Amesbury, Wiltshire. They are only a stones-throw (more a pebble toss than a trilithon hurl) from the Countess Road roundabout on the A303. Clearly a place you might want to stop off and visit - along with some other smashing shops in Amesbury - when the traffic on the A303 has slowed to a miserable crawl.
One Brown Cow found an open-access Traffic England) Highways Agency traffic camera close to Solstice Park, Amesbury. Take a look here to see the latest view of the A303 at that location.
Further west, there is a similar camera at Mere on the dual-carriageway section there.
In fact, I owe a bit of an apology to the Highways Agency, the Traffic England site is actually pretty good and informative. Go here to find their interactive map. If you want to access the cameras, you will need to click the button next to the camera icon to the right of the map.
UPDATE:
One Brown Cow (@onebrowncow) has just got back to us to say that the Solstice Park camera isn't fixed - at the time of writing, it is now looking back up the A303 towards Beacon Hill and the ever-growing traffic queue.
One Brown Cow is a boutique gift shop specialising in quality jewellery, designer and contemporary gifts at 40 High Street, Amesbury, Wiltshire. They are only a stones-throw (more a pebble toss than a trilithon hurl) from the Countess Road roundabout on the A303. Clearly a place you might want to stop off and visit - along with some other smashing shops in Amesbury - when the traffic on the A303 has slowed to a miserable crawl.
One Brown Cow found an open-access Traffic England) Highways Agency traffic camera close to Solstice Park, Amesbury. Take a look here to see the latest view of the A303 at that location.
Further west, there is a similar camera at Mere on the dual-carriageway section there.
In fact, I owe a bit of an apology to the Highways Agency, the Traffic England site is actually pretty good and informative. Go here to find their interactive map. If you want to access the cameras, you will need to click the button next to the camera icon to the right of the map.
UPDATE:
One Brown Cow (@onebrowncow) has just got back to us to say that the Solstice Park camera isn't fixed - at the time of writing, it is now looking back up the A303 towards Beacon Hill and the ever-growing traffic queue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)