At Grade Roundabout for A40 Witney Bypass

[Berk]

No, it’s like I said above. If you live in the country, you generally need to travel further to get to basic services, such as shops, the doctor etc.

If you live in the middle of Leeds, it’s probably much closer to local services, so you won’t even need to get the car out at all. I live at least 10 miles from any High Street, and my town is currently down to a single supermarket again (one has closed and not yet reopened as a convenience store). Tesco’s is 3¾ miles from my home.

Nearly every person who can drive does. My half of town doesn’t have a regular bus service any more - it used to just until I learnt to drive. All we have is a service to Spalding, and another to Stamford - both every two hours, weekdays only.

Here in Deeping, parking is free. In Stamford and Spalding, you have to pay. It’s probably a reasonable trade off - and there is free parking available in Stamford if you can find a place.

[Richard_Fairhurst]

I also live in the country, about eight miles away from Witney, in a town with a population of just 3,000. So I know pretty well of what I speak.

Parking in Witney and other towns in West Oxfordshire is subsidised by council tax payers, including non-drivers - that's how it's free. Buses aren't, since Oxfordshire County Council withdrew all bus subsidies the other year, and are consequently pretty expensive - if they exist at all. (The Witney shopper bus is now on its fourth operator in a few years.)

That is going further than simply permitting people to drive instead of take the bus. The subsidy choice is actively encouraging them to do so, and "encourage" was the word I used - nothing about not "allowing" it as M5Lenzar rather rabidly put it.

(FWIW, I think neighbouring Cotswold District Council has it right: the car parks are charged for, but free after 3pm.)

[Berk]

(FWIW, I think neighbouring Cotswold District Council has it right: the car parks are charged for, but free after 3pm.)

You're only going to get afternoon shoppers then, or people stopping off on the way home. I think the model we’ve got I’ve here works. The smaller towns in South Kesteven don’t charge for parking, because historically they haven’t (being too small, and rural, and parking not being much of an issue until the 2000s), but Stamford and Grantham do because they’re ‘urban’.

Perhaps think whether Witney would fit that model or not.

[Richard_Fairhurst]

Witney is more urban than Stamford, easily (I used to live in Rutland near the latter). It's very much the odd district out round here - every neighbouring district charges for parking, but West Oxfordshire District Council have elevated fee-free parking into their religion, much to the exasperation of their (Tory) compatriots at Oxfordshire County Council who, as the highway authority, have to pick up the resulting mess of congestion.

And of course charging for parking doesn't mean you don't get people parking, it just means they have to pay towards the resource they're using.

[roadphotos]

A while ago one of the local MPs raised the issue of the A40 at prime minister's questions in Westminster. I remember him asking the prime minister for assurances that money would be made available for proposed A40 upgrades. He asked the question concerning the development at Witney and asked about improvements to the road. I'm not sure whether what's proposed is any significant improvements or just minor junction improvements so I thought I'd see if anyone on here has anymore information on this.

[Graham]

There's a lot that could be done to solve it, but step one shouldn't be infrastructure, it should be removing the free parking policy that encourages Witney people to make short trips by car when they could be made on foot, by bike, or by the town 'shopper' bus.

With respect, this argument is not that simple. I live in a small market town surrounded (at a distance of 8-12 miles) by three larger towns and cities. My town introduced excessive parking charges about 15 years ago, along with over-zealous parking enforcement. The result - 80% of the town's residents (this is the council's own figures) now drive to the surrounding towns to do their shopping.

Yes, the council have reduced the number of short trips by car. However, they have been replaced by medium journeys by car.

[Richard_Fairhurst]

Sure. Excessive parking charges are, well, excessive. But it's possible to be too low as well as too high, and Witney's pricing (free) is too low. Ideally, I guess, it should be set at a similar level to nearby towns in other districts - why should Witney be cheaper than Banbury or Swindon, for example? - and at a price that doesn't give it an artificial advantage over rail or bus.

(Not that Witney has a railway... but that's another story!)

[KeithW]

Yarm in North Yorkshire is a small market town that has quite a well balanced parking system. There are 3 long term car parks just off the high street where parking is a flat fee of £1.50 per day. On the high street there are pay and display machines. A ticket for the first hour is free but it costs £1 for the next 2 hours and £1 every hour after that. This frees up the high street parking for shoppers while discouraging long term parking by people who work in the town.

Northallerton & Thirsk operate a similar system except after the first hour the charge is 80p per hour

Stokesley still has a parking disk system which provides 2 hour free parking on the high street with long term car parks that charge at 80p per hour but a max of £3.20 all day

All of these towns have managed to maintain a good balance of shops on the high street. As old market towns they all have broad high streets and a market area which helps of course, providing you avoid market day

[roadphotos]

Although this new roundabout ruins a perfectly good dual carriageway it's created a good cut through to the A4095 at Curbridge. Not sure what the residents in the village think of this though.

[Truvelo]

It looks like two more roundabouts were planned for the A40 near Witney. At the eastern end of the bypass a massive new development was planned but thankfully it's been withdrawn, for now. I wonder if a revised scheme will be put forward eventually.

[Berk]

Did anyone find out why they the designed the roundabout with such a massive offset?? You really have to slam the brakes on to avoid driving across it.

Before anyone criticises that, the road is still NSL, and definitely wasn’t designed to feature an arbitrary roundabout thrown in at random.

[Jeni]

Did anyone find out why they the designed the roundabout with such a massive offset?? You really have to slam the brakes on to avoid driving across it.

Before anyone criticises that, the road is still NSL, and definitely wasn’t designed to feature an arbitrary roundabout thrown in at random.

Are there no signs warning of the roundabout ahead?

[Berk]

There are, it it still seems counter-intuitive for the road to lurch to the right by 45°. Older roads (such as those designed when this bypass was) do not use excessive deflection like this.

[Jeni]

There are, it it still seems counter-intuitive for the road to lurch to the right by 45°. Older roads (such as those designed when this bypass was) do not use excessive deflection like this.

As long as someone is driving to the conditions when I can't see why they'd have issues spotting the layout and adjusting their speed and direction as appropriate?

Or am I missing something?

[DB617]

There are, it it still seems counter-intuitive for the road to lurch to the right by 45°. Older roads (such as those designed when this bypass was) do not use excessive deflection like this.

As long as someone is driving to the conditions when I can't see why they'd have issues spotting the layout and adjusting their speed and direction as appropriate?

Or am I missing something?

Apparently people can't spot Stonehouse junction despite the relatively long lead-in, so anything is possible...

That said, if you build a roundabout where cars that don't spot it until the last second can careen across at 40-50mph, and call it 'safe', you won't like the tin can full of chunky salsa that's made the first time someone overruns and hits a vehicle emerging. I'd rather have a strong, impact resistant 'excessive' deflection that too-fast inattentive drivers bounce off, so as not to kill anyone else in the process.

Until you've seen someone approaching the side of your vehicle at excessive speed on a roundabout because they were too fast for you to give way, and possibly faced your last moments, I guess you could still rule in favour of smaller, easier to navigate roundabouts. Luckily for me the first roundabout outside my house regularly plays host to BMW drivers who think 50 in a 30 across a roundabout is not criminally negligent driving.

[Bryn666]

The big problem is the deflection design is far less than what is used on a 70 mph road.

Apparently, having spoken with TVP whilst at a road safety audit in another part of the county this week, the only reason it is a roundabout is the developer cried poverty and wouldn't pay for a second link road that would have enabled a LILO compact GSJ suitable for such a road as a bridge already exists.

So the original rantings I had two years ago are vindicated. It's development at any cost.

[Berk]

The whole scheme should’ve been refused then. The only reason it’s remotely acceptable is that provides a link to the A4095 that was non-existent before.

But it should’ve been done properly.

[DB617]

The whole scheme should’ve been refused then. The only reason it’s remotely acceptable is that provides a link to the A4095 that was non-existent before.

But it should’ve been done properly.

This is a condition that exists as a result of the Councils being led by developers. It really should be the other way round given that the developers are not the planning authority. But all they have to say is "Fine, we will build in another county" and the Council bends to their every wish. It really does amaze me that my local council actually issued stop notices to the building consortium on Barry Waterfront over the fact they had made no move towards constructing any of the amenities promised in the planning document.

This isn't a new thing, though; I live on Rhoose Point, a development of solely houses which was once to have a golf course, a pub and a local shop. Now there is a new development of thousands of houses in progress in which the Council are opening a school (by demolishing a school in a local hamlet) but no other amenities or facilities are to be added to the village (soon to be town). At least we got the train station reopened, I guess.

[SteveA30]

I was going to make the point about another slip from the bridge but, Bryn covered that. Shouldn't developers have to prove poverty rather than just saying it?
I can't see how a second LILO slip would cost more than a rbt. The link road seems to be D2, pointless for such a short stretch. The saving from building an S2 would have probably covered the 'extra' cost of the w/bnd LILO.
There isn't really a need for a junction there at all, unless it is for the A4095. There is e/bnd access from the next bridge west and from the west end of the bypass for w/bnd traffic, without going through Witney.

[Berk]

I was going to make the point about another slip from the bridge but, Bryn covered that. Shouldn't developers have to prove poverty rather than just saying it?
I can't see how a second LILO slip would cost more than a rbt. The link road seems to be D2, pointless for such a short stretch. The saving from building an S2 would have probably covered the 'extra' cost of the w/bnd LILO.
There isn't really a need for a junction there at all, unless it is for the A4095. There is e/bnd access from the next bridge west and from the west end of the bypass for w/bnd traffic, without going through Witney.

You may not be aware but a new business park has been built north of the junction. That and the lack of A4095 access would make a junction desirable.

It has to be at least a mile to continue to the next junction and double-back.