Route Management Strategy: A46/M5/M50/A40
Discussion
There's a Highways Authority "public consultation" going on til 23rd August concernig the above roads. There's a mobile exhibition going round for a whole week where you can see their plans. Sadly I won't be around on the single day it's in my area, and I guess anyone who drives for work will be the same so it will just be the retired and numpties.
The survey leaflet wants to know your thoughts on their "Route Outcomes". They have made a list of 15:
- Wildlife and the environment
- Landscape
- Noise
- Speed management
- Accidents
- Traveller care -- lay-bys
- Non-motorised users and accessibility
- Signing
- Public transport
- Network management
- Emergency services
- Lighting
- Land use
- Abnormal loads
- Congestion
Under "speed management": high vehicle speeds have a range of impacts. Speed restrictions may be re-evaluated to help improve operational performance and reduce accidents along the route.
Under "non-motorised users and accessibility": pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians are the most vulnerable users of the roads. A study into existing facilities has been undertaken and improvements where appropriate will be made as funds become available.
Most of the content of this leaflet is similarly depressingly meaningless. I was surprised (well, maybe not) that there is no mention of decreasing journey time for the most important road users.
My response to their poxy survey is therefore:
"No, I do not agree with your route management strategy
"The most important road users are not "pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians" but cars and trucks. Your first priority should be to speed up journies along the route for the most important users. If others are to use the route they should be segregated for safety. "High vehicle speeds" are desirable and to be encouraged/facilitated, NOT prevented. I cannot believe that you are totally ignoring this vital aspect of travel."
Might make me feel better, but I don't expect the message to be welcomed or acted on. Why do we have to put up with this trash? Who pays for these roads anyway?
The survey leaflet wants to know your thoughts on their "Route Outcomes". They have made a list of 15:
- Wildlife and the environment
- Landscape
- Noise
- Speed management
- Accidents
- Traveller care -- lay-bys
- Non-motorised users and accessibility
- Signing
- Public transport
- Network management
- Emergency services
- Lighting
- Land use
- Abnormal loads
- Congestion
Under "speed management": high vehicle speeds have a range of impacts. Speed restrictions may be re-evaluated to help improve operational performance and reduce accidents along the route.
Under "non-motorised users and accessibility": pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians are the most vulnerable users of the roads. A study into existing facilities has been undertaken and improvements where appropriate will be made as funds become available.
Most of the content of this leaflet is similarly depressingly meaningless. I was surprised (well, maybe not) that there is no mention of decreasing journey time for the most important road users.
My response to their poxy survey is therefore:
"No, I do not agree with your route management strategy
"The most important road users are not "pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians" but cars and trucks. Your first priority should be to speed up journies along the route for the most important users. If others are to use the route they should be segregated for safety. "High vehicle speeds" are desirable and to be encouraged/facilitated, NOT prevented. I cannot believe that you are totally ignoring this vital aspect of travel."
Might make me feel better, but I don't expect the message to be welcomed or acted on. Why do we have to put up with this trash? Who pays for these roads anyway?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff