Topic ID 4179
I see they are launching a competition to try to find a solution to traffic problem/chaos to be caused by the new Sainsbury’s. Good luck to them!! I suspect it will be launched as the Quart in a pint pot competition!
Reply ID 60675
Having studied the Mercury article Sainsbury’s have conceded that “ it may not be possible to address traffic capacity issues and only environmental improvements (whatever they are) can be made.“ As I said Quart in a pint pot.
Reply ID 60677
So, they've admitted that there will be problems with access to the site but still going ahead with it. Great.
Reply ID 60678
No, they will pull the plans and go for a hosing development.
Reply ID 60681
It could be a brave and radical approach, though I doubt it's that intentional. We can't halt all human progress, just because we can't think of a way to accommodate motor vehicles forever. However, if it were considered an insummountable obstacle, that would score heavily against housing as an alternative.
Reply ID 60682
The Bengeo Tunnel perhaps, or maybe a Viaduct.....
Reply ID 60683
As long as no one suggest tarmaccing Hartham and entering via Ware Road
Reply ID 60684
I fully agree Shunt.Time does move on,but this really is a location issue. If what ever is eventually build there generates much greater traffic it is going to be a problem. As my dad used to say many years ago when held up in the Hertford traffic, when there was nothing the like the congestion experienced these days,that this town & it’s streets were constructed to accommodate a few Horse & carts.
Reply ID 60685
Nothing would surprise me Marilyn
Reply ID 60724
It just gets better & better. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury%2Dnews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=390340 They've admitted there is a problem and we have to pay to sort it out! Sainsbury's can go and swivel.
Reply ID 60727
quote:It always comes back to;- what else could be done with the site, that would be beneficial, financially sustainable and cost less for the return? I'm sure the council would listen to any viable alternative. The problem is, for those who don't want Sainsbury, is that they have been unable to think of one or find anyone to back it. Nothing else causes as little cost and inconvenience, even taking into account that the Sainsbury plan will involve an element of both.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
It just gets better & better. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury%2Dnews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=390340 They've admitted there is a problem and we have to pay to sort it out! Sainsbury's can go and swivel.
Reply ID 60730
I'm not opposed to a Sainsbury's in the town and wouldn't be opposed to a Sainsbury's on the McMullen's site. However, I am opposed to any company that will cause traffic problems in the area and even more so to a company that wants me to pay to sort out the problem they will cause.
Reply ID 60741
quote:Again, as Shunt said. Name someone or something that is viable (aka realistic) that won't cause traffic problems? Bet you can't.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I'm not opposed to a Sainsbury's in the town and wouldn't be opposed to a Sainsbury's on the McMullen's site. However, I am opposed to any company that will cause traffic problems in the area and even more so to a company that wants me to pay to sort out the problem they will cause.
Reply ID 60742
Leave it as it is.
Reply ID 60743
As the council in their wisdom have deemed that Sainsbury’s is suitable for the area (despite Sainsbury’s own admission of the ensuing traffic problems) perhaps there should be six months trial of the reinstatement of the mini roundabout at Old Cross. Surely this would not cost that much to implement, providing that the council don’t decide to pay a consultant a few thousand pounds of our money to predict the outcome.
Reply ID 60744
quote:Rusting tanks, decaying and empty 70's industrial buildings, disused warehouses and yards. Attractive! Who's going to maintain it, keep it safe, protect it from arson, vandalism, infestation and dangerous collapse? What about the old part of the old brewery? Should it just be allowed fall down, becoming an unsafe eyesore too and blocking the routes to the current businesses and Hartham?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Leave it as it is.
Reply ID 60745
It could be a very nice viable college and might entice some people back into the work pool.
Reply ID 60748
Knock it all down, put some grass down and a few trees. An extension to Hartham. Who do I see for my £150,000 consultancy fee?
Reply ID 60749
quote:I'll go for that one.
Originally posted by James007
It could be a very nice viable college and might entice some people back into the work pool.
Reply ID 60752
quote:You can have it with pleasure. Now all you have to do to qualify, is find several millions to purchase the site, tens of thousands for the demolition works, having first overturned the listing on the older part, several hundreds of thousands for landscaping and stocking and maybe a few more hundred thousand per year for maintenance, insurance and policing. Whatever profit is left over from the income that the resulting park generates, after expenses, is your bonus. [:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Knock it all down, put some grass down and a few trees. An extension to Hartham. Who do I see for my £150,000 consultancy fee?
Reply ID 60754
You're right shunt. Send Sainsbury's in, gridlock the town. Even better is that you get to pay to come up with a non-viable solution that will get the go ahead as the councillors won't want to lose face and it won't ease the congestion one bit. "Progress" for the sake of progress. Why jump feet first into a project that has a known BIG problem before it even starts? The site has stood as it is for a long time. Why give approval to the first company that comes along?
Reply ID 60756
quote:Fine so long as the lights remain for the benefit of pedestrians. Remember what it used to be like trying to cross there? It'd be even worse with the expected increase in traffic.
Originally posted by Eyeone
As the council in their wisdom have deemed that Sainsbury’s is suitable for the area (despite Sainsbury’s own admission of the ensuing traffic problems) perhaps there should be six months trial of the reinstatement of the mini roundabout at Old Cross. Surely this would not cost that much to implement, providing that the council don’t decide to pay a consultant a few thousand pounds of our money to predict the outcome.
Reply ID 60761
quote:Is Sainsbury the first company to come along, or the only one to proceed? As you say, the site has been in disuse and decay for a long time. That certainly isn't 'viable' or sustainable. Nobody has come up with a use which would not increase overall traffic, except Sainsbury, who's development just shifts it from one part of town to another. I can't say that I look forward to it, or like it, but I can't see better use for this site either.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
You're right shunt. Send Sainsbury's in, gridlock the town. Even better is that you get to pay to come up with a non-viable solution that will get the go ahead as the councillors won't want to lose face and it won't ease the congestion one bit. "Progress" for the sake of progress. Why jump feet first into a project that has a known BIG problem before it even starts? The site has stood as it is for a long time. Why give approval to the first company that comes along?
Reply ID 60763
I just can't see the logic in intentionally creating a problem.
Reply ID 60765
quote:I can understand that, but there is already an existing problem which needs to be solved;- the unused and decaying site. Sainsbury isn't ideal, but the options are even less viable, not least because of the current economic climate. The area looks like a scene from Terminator (after the bomb) at the moment and though I don't particularly like Sainsbury's design, it's better than allowing this bit of Hertford to look like a mini Detroit.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I just can't see the logic in intentionally creating a problem.
Reply ID 60779
Although getting away from my original topic why did McMullans allow the site to fall into such a sorry state? The old Unicorn side is appalling and has been for years. I doubt that they were ever cash strapped. Hardly a show piece for the company.
Reply ID 60781
quote:Spot on eyeore.
Originally posted by Eyeone
Although getting away from my original topic why did McMullans allow the site to fall into such a sorry state? The old Unicorn side is appalling and has been for years. I doubt that they were ever cash strapped. Hardly a show piece for the company.
Reply ID 60783
quote:They haven't owned the site for a couple of years, so they can hardly be blamed for it's condition now. Granted the Unicorn and neighbouring land have been derelict for longer, but the company has undergone quite a few changes over the previous years and I imagine spending money on maintaining that part of the site was not a high priority. http://www.hertford.net/news/news250202.asp
Originally posted by Eyeone
Although getting away from my original topic why did McMullans allow the site to fall into such a sorry state? The old Unicorn side is appalling and has been for years. I doubt that they were ever cash strapped. Hardly a show piece for the company.
Reply ID 60814
The neglect has gone on for years. £200 million! Definitely not strapped for money!
Reply ID 60819
quote:That's the value of the business - not ready money.
Originally posted by Eyeone
£200 million! Definitely not strapped for money!
Reply ID 60822
Yes but doesn’t that include the assets. If the buildings had been maintained or renovated they would be worth more than just the land they now occupy and he whole area would look like somebody cared.
Reply ID 60823
Fristly, Council, you should be ashamed of giving Sainsbury's the go-ahead when the traffic issue was pointed out ad-nauseum and now we are faced with coughing up AND sitting in traffic. Secondly, Sainsburys went through both of the applications and the 'Sasinburys is coming! Rejoyce, ye people of Hertford1' cobblers with cloth ears as far as the traffic is concerned and should foot the entire bill. Or at the very least,McMullens, former rulers of Hertford should foot the other half. Invest in 'your' town, please! Thirdly, Council (again), WE TOLD YOU SO you.....you...planks! When the OX grinds to a halt because an artic lorry can't get the turning circle I'll send you a photo with 'Nya nya nya' scrawled across it! I have lost all sense of reason, have a headache, and am mightily vexed at how stupid things can get! [:(!] <throwing shopping out of trolley and trolley into the river>
Reply ID 60827
I seem to recall there was talk of the Government allowing councils to run their own local congestion charge schemes. Could it be our own council having studied the potential traffic problems are now be looking ahead and rubbing their hands in glee?
Reply ID 60830
quote:Not so. To maintain buildings which were always going to be demolished would incur expense without adding anything to the value. It's worth more without the buildings than with them. As for the traffic, there is no increase, just a relocation. The effect may be negative within a few hundred yards, but for Hertford overall it can't be. For some areas, it may even relieve some of the current load. The problems I see are;- managing the right turn into Hartham lane and the left filter from the Wash into St Andrew St, as that narrows the turn that was always an easy manouver for large trucks in the past. Illegal parking on the Wash will have to go, as will the Woolpack taxi rank and the bus stop by Samuel Stone. Drivers queuing on Cowbridge in peak times will have to be pursuaded to leave the full width of the Hartham lane entrance clear, as they should do anyway. If it is clear, a tractor and 40ft trailer can make both turns with comparitive ease.
Originally posted by Eyeone
Yes but doesn’t that include the assets. If the buildings had been maintained or renovated they would be worth more than just the land they now occupy and he whole area would look like somebody cared.
Reply ID 60831
...or artics can avoid the 90 degree left turn infront on McM's followed immediately by the 90 degree right turn into Hartham by just driving straight through McM's yard.
Reply ID 60833
Where will the Bus stop By Samuel stone be moved to?
Reply ID 60834
How do large trucks negotiate the town to deliver to (and leave) Waitrose at the moment? I'm thinking of the right turn at M&S down South Street and also the approach from Railway Street (Hertford East) towards the bus station and back again.
Reply ID 60835
By using the full width of the road?
Reply ID 60836
quote:Are you related to Aubend and buzz? [:D]
Originally posted by Eyeone
By using the full width of the road?
Reply ID 60837
quote:LOL [:D]
Originally posted by James007quote:Are you related to Aubend and buzz? [:D]
Originally posted by Eyeone
By using the full width of the road?
Reply ID 60843
quote:With any luck Sam Stone'll get knocked over by an artic!
Originally posted by Eyeone
Where will the Bus stop By Samuel stone be moved to?
Reply ID 60844
quote:Sam Stone will be retained as he is pointing the way to Sainsbury, which will be useful for the delivery drivers.
Originally posted by dennismoorequote:With any luck Sam Stone'll get knocked over by an artic!
Originally posted by Eyeone
Where will the Bus stop By Samuel stone be moved to?
Reply ID 60845
So THAT'S why it's there.
Reply ID 60846
The problems I see are;- managing the right turn into Hartham lane and the left filter from the Wash into St Andrew St, as that narrows the turn that was always an easy manouver for large trucks in the past. Illegal parking on the Wash will have to go, as will the Woolpack taxi rank and the bus stop by Samuel Stone. Drivers queuing on Cowbridge in peak times will have to be pursuaded to leave the full width of the Hartham lane entrance clear, as they should do anyway. If it is clear, a tractor and 40ft trailer can make both turns with comparitive ease.( shunt) I see you have taken up lorry driving now shunt, he he. Dont the gee gees want you? [:D]
Reply ID 60848
And how will the junction of Hartham Lane and Cowbridge/Old Cross manage up to 200 cars in and out every hour at peak times?
Reply ID 60850
quote:That's more of a challenge. However, shopping peak times are different than commuting peak times, so though this area may be busy for most of the day, rather than just an hour twice a day, we can't simply add the two together. Also, bear in mind that these cars are already out in Hertford and a fair proportion already passing through OX on their way to, or from Tesco. Even with traffic surveys, it's almost impossible to judge what the impact will be. Like it was with Mill Road, it's likely that there will have to be several retrospective tweeks to the opening road design.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
And how will the junction of Hartham Lane and Cowbridge/Old Cross manage up to 200 cars in and out every hour at peak times?
Reply ID 60852
quote:I think I have a solution! How about a sainsburys park and ride bus service, where all the shoppers park their cars at county hall and get bussed down to the store Not convienent for the shoppers but a two finger salute to the muppets in county hall who agreed to the proposal when they can't find a car park space for their 4 x 4 or jaguar!!!
Originally posted by shuntquote:That's more of a challenge. However, shopping peak times are different than commuting peak times, so though this area may be busy for most of the day, rather than just an hour twice a day, we can't simply add the two together. Also, bear in mind that these cars are already out in Hertford and a fair proportion already passing through OX on their way to, or from Tesco. Even with traffic surveys, it's almost impossible to judge what the impact will be. Like it was with Mill Road, it's likely that there will have to be several retrospective tweeks to the opening road design.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
And how will the junction of Hartham Lane and Cowbridge/Old Cross manage up to 200 cars in and out every hour at peak times?
Reply ID 60853
quote:I might be wrong but I thought that Highways were opposed to this development. And the application was approved by East Herts (at Wallfields) and not by the County Council as it is a retail development. Even then, I believe that the planners' recommendation was for refusal and the application was approved on the basis of one councillors' vote ... who lives in Bishops' Stortford, so maybe the park and ride should start in Bishops' Stortford!
Originally posted by Firedupinside [ I think I have a solution! How about a sainsburys park and ride bus service, where all the shoppers park their cars at county hall and get bussed down to the store Not convienent for the shoppers but a two finger salute to the muppets in county hall who agreed to the proposal when they can't find a car park space for their 4 x 4 or jaguar!!!
Reply ID 60854
BRING BACK THE ROUNDABOUT AT OLD CROSS AND GET RID OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS. WHO'S GOING TO JOIN MY 'ROY ROBERTS MEMORIAL ROUNDABOUT' CAMPAIGN?! [:D]
Reply ID 60855
The junction of St Andrews, Old Cross and Mill Bridge Street will never be able to cope with all the new traffic, so why not take the traffic in via mill road build a bridge over the river and pass the traffic via hartham lane car park. You could knock down tesco to widen the road……now you all like the idea!!!!
Reply ID 60856
You are a genius [:D] LOL
Reply ID 60857
quote:Before the lights it was very dangerous to cross there and with an increase in traffic would be more so. It's one of the main crossing points in the town centre and is used by many hundreds of people every day, including hundreds of school children whose parents might otherwise decide to drive them to school instead. A roundabout would be fine so long as there's provision like there is at the moment to stop the traffic completely every 2 or 3 minutes and allow people to cross. For this there'd need to be lights.
Originally posted by Kitty Kat
BRING BACK THE ROUNDABOUT AT OLD CROSS AND GET RID OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS. WHO'S GOING TO JOIN MY 'ROY ROBERTS MEMORIAL ROUNDABOUT' CAMPAIGN?! [:D]
Reply ID 60858
Lighten up - just a jokey suggestion
Reply ID 60859
quote:Best advice I've had all day! [:D] Although I have heard some people make the same suggestion, and not be joking.
Originally posted by Kitty Kat
Lighten up - just a jokey suggestion
Reply ID 60860
My mother-in-law lives in Old Cross Wharf - so what with the building going on for the new library etc across the river and now the potential Sainsbury's site - it's gonna be noisy and dusty for the next year! God knows what the traffic will be like through there when this all happens - and I wonder what the current library will become?!
Reply ID 60861
surely the traffic will be worse during the construction period anyway?
Reply ID 60862
quote:Designer flats, surely?
Originally posted by Kitty Kat
My mother-in-law lives in Old Cross Wharf - so what with the building going on for the new library etc across the river and now the potential Sainsbury's site - it's gonna be noisy and dusty for the next year! God knows what the traffic will be like through there when this all happens - and I wonder what the current library will become?!
Reply ID 60863
Exactly - and where are they all going to park?!
Reply ID 60870
What would be wrong with putting the roundabout back in and retaining the present traffic lights but for pedestrian operation only? We have all seen the vast improvement in traffic flow when the lights fail.
Reply ID 60871
A park & ride scheme is an excellent idea. I would suggest demolishing county hall and giving the planning officers jobs driving the buses.
Reply ID 60875
quote:As previously mentioned, the planning officers you speak of are at Wallfields, not County Hall. The District Council, not the County Council. And it wasn't the Planning Officer that approved the development anyway.
Originally posted by Eyeone
A park & ride scheme is an excellent idea. I would suggest demolishing county hall and giving the planning officers jobs driving the buses.
Reply ID 60894
I stand corrected [:0](thanks to these new orthopaedic shoes[:D] ) Sincere apologies to the planners. They clearly have more sense than the Councillors. The planners should take over the Councillors jobs while the Councillors are away doing their Bus driver training.[:D]
Reply ID 60903
Before anyone says any more read the planning permission, with conditions and payments, all nine pages of it including the community offers, library commitment, signage, RPZ, traffic consultations and so on and so on and then make a valued judgement. Because as someone who's been involved with this for over two years the supermarket seems as far away as ever. And when you look at the Section 106's and other conditions imposed on this no one else (such as local housebuilders) is going to touch it with a bargepole. Notwithstanding that Sainsbury's offered much of what is in this permission there's a lot that comes as a surprise to me and most probably them - like paying £5000 for an extension of an alcohol free zone around Hartham. And I don't remember anyone talking about a pedestrian bridge at Dolphin Yard. I thought it was to be Little Hartham - but who am I? Unless planning made an error on Page 1, para 2.
Reply ID 60923
quote:I got a copy of that yesteday. It is rather dense reading. One of the other things I spotted was mention of a pedestrian/cyclist crossing at Port Hill (presumably near Hillside) and, I think (I only had a quick glance), that delivery lorries would be banned between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
Before anyone says any more read the planning permission, with conditions and payments, all nine pages of it including the community offers, library commitment, signage, RPZ, traffic consultations and so on and so on and then make a valued judgement. Because as someone who's been involved with this for over two years the supermarket seems as far away as ever. And when you look at the Section 106's and other conditions imposed on this no one else (such as local housebuilders) is going to touch it with a bargepole. Notwithstanding that Sainsbury's offered much of what is in this permission there's a lot that comes as a surprise to me and most probably them - like paying £5000 for an extension of an alcohol free zone around Hartham. And I don't remember anyone talking about a pedestrian bridge at Dolphin Yard. I thought it was to be Little Hartham - but who am I? Unless planning made an error on Page 1, para 2.
Reply ID 60927
quote:Great idea.
Originally posted by Ray_by_the_Beane
One of the other things I spotted was mention of a pedestrian/cyclist crossing at Port Hill (presumably near Hillside)
Reply ID 60936
A crossing there is something we badly need anyway, with or without Sainsburys.