- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
-
-
As a resident of West Hagbourne, the proposed upgrade to Hagbourne Hill fills me with horror. We already have more traffic than a small village can handle at rush hour, and the upgrade will make the route through our village more attractive to drivers from the east side of Didcot who are going south on the A34 or coming to site. Further, anyone coming from site or off the A34 at the Chilton junction, especially after the northbound exit/entry slips have been put in place, will turn right to go through West Hagbourne rather than go all the way to the new link road.
I’m not sure how clear it is, but another change is that the exit from West Hagbourne onto the A417 will become left turn only. Again, for village residents, anyone wanting to go towards Rowstock will now have to turn left onto the A417 and go all the way around the new roundabout. Not a big deal, maybe, but it’s very exasperating that no thought seems to have been given to the consequences for West Hagbourne.
What does this have to do with cyclng? Not much, except that cycling through West Hagbourne will be even more dangerous and unattractive than it is now – I’m just one angry & annoyed West Hagbourne resident, and this topic gave me the opportunity to vent!
-
The “original” plan (which has probably now been cheapened ) was for a road from the Didcot link road up through “Valley Park” to the Reading Road which you then drive along to get to the Hagbourne Hill roundabout. The concerns you note were to be covered by stuffing W. Hagbourne (and Harwell) full of traffic calming measures to deter people from using these routes. Didcot people would have to drive towards Harwell then up the new road (or cycle of course). How much of this will be “affordable” or “do-able at the same time” is a different matter of course…..
-
With the new link road running alongside the A34, I would think the traffic through West Hagbourne would reduce not get worse. WH is already a pinch point if I drive (I live East Hagbourne and a lot of people who currently use Park Road from Didcot to Coscote would start using the new link road?
I definitely think upgrades are required to the Sustrans track over Hagbourne Hill. It seems crazy not to! But a concern would be how easy it will be to cross the road at the top now it is a main road. Visibility isn’t great at the moment and would need improving from all directions.
-
For the record here’s what I submitted on line to the council.
I regular experience motorists overtaking inappropriately (& potentially dangerously) especially along the top of Hagbourne Hill.The plans to straighten and flatten the top of Hagbourne Hill are good plans. However I understand there will be a lot more traffic along that route adding to the danger and potential conflict between motorists and
cyclists.
As a cyclist the plan to make Chilton Road a traffic free route is obviously welcome. The cycle route 544 continues past Hagbourne Farm, across the A34 and down that way to the Harwell Campus. The problem is that the length of route 544 from the A34 to Harwell Campus is very rough, and basically NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. I ride a small wheeled folding bike and there is no way I could use that route regularly. I need to keep to tarmac. In the context of the increased traffic over Hagbourne Hill I would strongly encourage you to tarmac this stretch of route 544 to make it a viable cycle route over its complete length -
The new link road will be a longer (in distance) journey for many in Didcot; unless it’s significantly shorter in time, people will continue to use West Hagbourne, and if the road over Hagbourne Hill is wider and better surfaced, more people will choose to use that route. Don’t forget, there are houses about to go up along Park Road, and in the future Ladygrove is to be extended eastwards; it really doesn’t seem likely that residents in the new housing will opt to go out of their way to use the link road. For people heading north, why would someone come down Hagbourne Hill and opt to drive *past* the first turning towards Didcot, unless they live in Harwell or off Wantage Road? Perhaps I’m being unduly pessimistic, but I’ve lived in West Hagbourne for 24 years and I’ve seen the traffic get heavier and heavier; the the traffic modellers at SODC/OCC cannot make their models match what’s happened over the last decade in our village and have consistently predicted decreasing traffic which is completely the opposite of what Parish Council-run traffic surveys have demonstrated.
Sorry to be so pessimistic – I suppose it won’t matter when we’re all part of Greater Didcot.
-
-
Re “short-cutters”: an approach I’ve seen on Swindon roads is to take advantage of the difference in wheelbase between normal cars and vehicles like ambulances (tractors?) and have quite severe sleeping policemen with “cut-outs” to allow these wide wheelbase vehicles (and bicycles) through without hinderance.
This doesn’t address all cases, but perhaps adding a gate or two at strategic points may help as well.
-
-
I think your first point is a very good one and why I (personally) would be very wary about putting a proper road surface on it. It is a bridleway (I believe) and not a BOAT (or whatever they are called now) but the farmer(s) would wish to continue using it so it can’t be closed off. The Tesco stuff is just one of those things that could happen anywhere and will have to be tackled separately
-
Wrong, the route is a “Restricted Byway” which is a bit of confusing right of way. This website is the definitve map for oxfordshire:
http://publicapps.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/environment_planning/countryside/Map/ROW/row.htmlWikipedia (I know, I know) says:
“On 2 May 2006 the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 reclassified all remaining Roads Used as Public Paths as restricted byways. The public’s rights along a restricted byway are to travel:
on foot
on horseback or leading a horse
by any vehicle (e.g. bicycles, horse-drawn carriages) other than mechanically propelled vehicles (e.g. motorbikes or cars) unless vehicular rights pre existed then the act did not extinguish those rights”Other sources say they’re not open to motorised traffic. I would guess the farm and the water authority (?) have access rights over the Restricted Byway, but in general, it’s not open to traffic, just my guess though.
-
I use the Featherbed Lane route daily, and am not delighted at the proposals. By smoothing it for cars they will be encouraging more of them, making it more frightening than it already is for cyclists. I doubt if a 40mph speed limit will do much – I expect that if the road is made open most cars will ignore the speed limit. Currently speed is kept down by the twists and turns that are to be removed.
There is no reasonable alternative route for cyclists, so I think that these changes should not be made without including quality provision for cyclists. By making this road faster for cars, and encouraging more cars onto it, they will be making an unattractive cycling route even less attractive – ie, they will be removing cycling provision. At their transport consultation they said that one of the four things the council had to do was to encourage ‘active transport’. I think that the proposed changes in Featherbed Lane will directly discourage active transport.
-
Can just ask if there was an official Harbug response made to the proposed Science Vale Cycle Network?
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.