No plans to make the Haughton Road throughabout into a normal roundabout, council says

Darlington and Stockton Times: Congestion at the Haughton Road throughabout Congestion at the Haughton Road throughabout

COUNCIL officials have insisted that they have no plans to change a much-maligned road junction in Darlington, but have admitted its operation will be reviewed later this year.

Darlington Borough Council has said there are no plans to make the Haughton Road throughabout into a conventional roundabout, despite repeated calls from motorists to change its layout.

Rumours suggesting that the throughabout would be scrapped had surfaced, but a council spokeswoman said that was not the case.

However, the junction will be subject to a ‘fundamental review’ later this year as a result of the increased traffic expected from the nearby Central Park development.

The controversial throughabout was built as part of the £14m Eastern Transport Corridor in 2008 and was designed to reduce journey times in and out of Darlington.

However, motorists claim the layout is overly-complicated and that the traffic lights cause long queues at busy times of day.

Council leader Bill Dixon said the throughabout is subject to constant monitoring to make sure that it is operating as efficiently as possible and added: “We will be looking at it later in the year to make sure that it works for everyone, particularly with the extra traffic going in and out of Central Park.

“I know no-one will believe me but the volume of traffic that gets through that junction far exceeds what would happen with a normal roundabout.

“If it were a standard roundabout people trying to come out of some of the side roads would sit for ages trying to get out. As it is, everyone has to wait their turn, for four or five minutes, but everyone gets out.

“Everyone says it works better when there are no lights but sod’s law means that the lights always break down during the school holidays – everything always works better when the schools are off.”

A Darlington Borough Council spokeswoman said: "We do not have any plans to convert the throughabout into a conventional roundabout at this time. We will review the operation of the traffic signals over the summer to ensure that they are operating as efficiently as possible.

“We do intend to carry out a fundamental review of the junction later in the year. This is in light of development proposals at Central Park and adjacent to the Eastern Transport Corridor."

Comments (83)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:34pm Fri 18 Apr 14

judygone says...

Bill Dixon talking out of his backside as usual. Lets just have a ‘fundamental review’ every 6 months to waste more taxpayers money for a few years, then finally admit the throughabout is crap.
Bill Dixon talking out of his backside as usual. Lets just have a ‘fundamental review’ every 6 months to waste more taxpayers money for a few years, then finally admit the throughabout is crap. judygone
  • Score: 32

3:13pm Fri 18 Apr 14

BMD says...

Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money. BMD
  • Score: 32

3:28pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Darloresident says...

Useless,incompetent and clueless.More of the poor council tax payers money being wasted by the numpties at the town hall who wont admit their expensive mistakes.Google "Darlington Buzz tv" and watch a video of Puffing Billy Dixon bigging himself up whilst admitting he doesnt do anything other than attend meetings.
Useless,incompetent and clueless.More of the poor council tax payers money being wasted by the numpties at the town hall who wont admit their expensive mistakes.Google "Darlington Buzz tv" and watch a video of Puffing Billy Dixon bigging himself up whilst admitting he doesnt do anything other than attend meetings. Darloresident
  • Score: 22

4:49pm Fri 18 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened.
What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened. challenger1
  • Score: 9

5:07pm Fri 18 Apr 14

judygone says...

challenger1 wrote:
What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened.
Is that you Bill ??
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened.[/p][/quote]Is that you Bill ?? judygone
  • Score: 13

5:32pm Fri 18 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

No it isn't.
All of the people who post comments here do not understand the reasons for building a throughabout as opposed to a normal roundabout.
Similarly, the main reason for building the Eastern Transport Corridor was to open up the land along the route for development, which was previously inaccessible and also to provide better access for Lingfield Point, allowing them to create the thousands of jobs they have since created.
If you want to be outraged about anything then ask why the landscaping works were removed from the scheme. The road was supposed to have grassed verges, hedges and trees, especially in the Redhall area. The people of Redhall were promised that trees would be planted next to the road to shield the road from their houses - the scandal is that these were removed at the last minute to save money after they were promised.
No it isn't. All of the people who post comments here do not understand the reasons for building a throughabout as opposed to a normal roundabout. Similarly, the main reason for building the Eastern Transport Corridor was to open up the land along the route for development, which was previously inaccessible and also to provide better access for Lingfield Point, allowing them to create the thousands of jobs they have since created. If you want to be outraged about anything then ask why the landscaping works were removed from the scheme. The road was supposed to have grassed verges, hedges and trees, especially in the Redhall area. The people of Redhall were promised that trees would be planted next to the road to shield the road from their houses - the scandal is that these were removed at the last minute to save money after they were promised. challenger1
  • Score: 18

5:37pm Fri 18 Apr 14

stevegg says...

This has been an unmitigated failure and everyone who uses it knows it causing more tailbacks than it was supposed to reduce, its just the council wont admit they were wrong so we all suffer as a result. If it was so good why is every other authority not using them?? How many of these have you come across on your travels?? Obviously councillor Dixon has not used this road when the lights have been switched off (and Im not talking in school in holidays either) as guess what - the traffic flows and there are no tailbacks! Most vehicles that use Haughton road still go via Haughton Road, not the eastern corridoor as claimed above, its about a 70% to 30% split as the lights are often on green with no ques onto/off the corridoor, however the traffic on haughton road and albert hill is always queing green lights or not . More taxpayers will be wasted on a pointless review with no result other than to say the council were right, its a forgone conclusion.
This has been an unmitigated failure and everyone who uses it knows it causing more tailbacks than it was supposed to reduce, its just the council wont admit they were wrong so we all suffer as a result. If it was so good why is every other authority not using them?? How many of these have you come across on your travels?? Obviously councillor Dixon has not used this road when the lights have been switched off (and Im not talking in school in holidays either) as guess what - the traffic flows and there are no tailbacks! Most vehicles that use Haughton road still go via Haughton Road, not the eastern corridoor as claimed above, its about a 70% to 30% split as the lights are often on green with no ques onto/off the corridoor, however the traffic on haughton road and albert hill is always queing green lights or not . More taxpayers will be wasted on a pointless review with no result other than to say the council were right, its a forgone conclusion. stevegg
  • Score: 12

5:45pm Fri 18 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled.
I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended.
The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village
Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled. I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended. The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village challenger1
  • Score: -3

6:04pm Fri 18 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

BMD wrote:
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago.
Why is Bill Dixon responsible ?
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid. challenger1
  • Score: -8

6:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

judygone says...

challenger1 wrote:
BMD wrote:
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago.
Why is Bill Dixon responsible ?
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.[/p][/quote]Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame. judygone
  • Score: 8

6:26pm Fri 18 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

judygone wrote:
challenger1 wrote:
BMD wrote:
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago.
Why is Bill Dixon responsible ?
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame.
Accepted, however he can't be held responsible for the design of every road junction designed that the people of Darlington don't like.
[quote][p][bold]judygone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.[/p][/quote]Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame.[/p][/quote]Accepted, however he can't be held responsible for the design of every road junction designed that the people of Darlington don't like. challenger1
  • Score: -8

7:42pm Fri 18 Apr 14

stevegg says...

challenger1 wrote:
Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled.
I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended.
The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village
What about all the traffic users who live in that quarter of the town or use Haughton road/Salters Lane South to circumvent the congested and heavily traffic lighted North Road to get onto Whinfield road/A167? Salters Lane South has traffic calming measures but that doesnt stop traffic.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled. I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended. The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village[/p][/quote]What about all the traffic users who live in that quarter of the town or use Haughton road/Salters Lane South to circumvent the congested and heavily traffic lighted North Road to get onto Whinfield road/A167? Salters Lane South has traffic calming measures but that doesnt stop traffic. stevegg
  • Score: 6

8:25pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Lifetime Townie says...

Sounds to me like a prolongation exercise by the council in deciding the obvious solution which is to make it a normal roundabout
Sounds to me like a prolongation exercise by the council in deciding the obvious solution which is to make it a normal roundabout Lifetime Townie
  • Score: 5

8:41pm Fri 18 Apr 14

miketually says...

Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards.
Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards. miketually
  • Score: -8

9:23pm Fri 18 Apr 14

loan_star says...

If the through about is meant to be a success then why is traffic backed up all the way to Halfords at rush hour? This in turn causes delays on the inner ring road back to stonegate roundabout which our beloved DBC feel that spending £3m on will be sorted. DBC have made a mess of our roads with their anti car schemes and traffic thinning, all of which has made driving around this town a right pain in the backside.
If the through about is meant to be a success then why is traffic backed up all the way to Halfords at rush hour? This in turn causes delays on the inner ring road back to stonegate roundabout which our beloved DBC feel that spending £3m on will be sorted. DBC have made a mess of our roads with their anti car schemes and traffic thinning, all of which has made driving around this town a right pain in the backside. loan_star
  • Score: 11

9:24pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Beccii says...

I use the road every morning and night to get to work in Stockton and I've never had a problem with the road just road users that don't use the through about correctly, the traffic has been much better since it was introduced. Queues going into and out of Haughton used to take much longer to get through; people are far too hasty to pick faults.
I use the road every morning and night to get to work in Stockton and I've never had a problem with the road just road users that don't use the through about correctly, the traffic has been much better since it was introduced. Queues going into and out of Haughton used to take much longer to get through; people are far too hasty to pick faults. Beccii
  • Score: 4

9:36pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Spy Boy says...

“I know no-one will believe me but the volume of traffic that gets through that junction far exceeds what would happen with a normal roundabout. Sez Bill. OK, so why does it work better when the lights fail? It should never have been built and we could have saved many thousands on an already over budget project. Have a referendum, Bill and see how many of us want it changed. No chance of that is there? You don't give a toss about what we want, do you.
“I know no-one will believe me but the volume of traffic that gets through that junction far exceeds what would happen with a normal roundabout. Sez Bill. OK, so why does it work better when the lights fail? It should never have been built and we could have saved many thousands on an already over budget project. Have a referendum, Bill and see how many of us want it changed. No chance of that is there? You don't give a toss about what we want, do you. Spy Boy
  • Score: 9

9:41pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Spy Boy says...

challenger1 wrote:
What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened.
Yes, but people try to avoid it like the plague. The thing would work better and be used more to clear Haughton Road if it were a standard roundabout. The council should change it and it would improve the flow there and on Yarm Road too.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: What you have to remember is that the throughabout was designed to alter the main flow of traffic from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor, which is exactly what it does. The traffic lights are intended to maintain the main flow from Haughton Road to the Eastern Transport Corridor. If the Throughabout is converted to a normal roundabout every approach road will have equal priority, which was not the intention when it was built. The intention was to take traffic away from Haughton village by changing the main priority. The idea was to follow up with traffic calming measures in Haughton village, which never happened.[/p][/quote]Yes, but people try to avoid it like the plague. The thing would work better and be used more to clear Haughton Road if it were a standard roundabout. The council should change it and it would improve the flow there and on Yarm Road too. Spy Boy
  • Score: 6

9:44pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Bank of Europe says...

challenger1, SORRY Bill Dixon....You and your cronies will never admit you have made such a fundamental mistake like the shambles you and your ‘team’ have made of Haughton Road, Instead of a ‘Review later in the year’ why not turn the lights off for ONE MONTH then YOU Bill / Challenger1 can tell the 95% of us we are wrong
challenger1, SORRY Bill Dixon....You and your cronies will never admit you have made such a fundamental mistake like the shambles you and your ‘team’ have made of Haughton Road, Instead of a ‘Review later in the year’ why not turn the lights off for ONE MONTH then YOU Bill / Challenger1 can tell the 95% of us we are wrong Bank of Europe
  • Score: 6

9:46pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Spy Boy says...

challenger1 wrote:
Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled.
I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended.
The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village
The so called Eastern Transit Corridor is never busy at any time of the day. The only hold up is on the Through-a-bout. Try getting out of Hundens Lane end. Impossible. You are either blocked by stationary traffic, or by people speeding through the lights before they turn red.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: Other authorities affic flow are building throughabouts - they are becoming widespread due to the benefits they give - enabling the main flow to be controlled. I think you are mistaken about the 70-30% split - if a traffic count was to be undertaken you would find that the majority of the traffic uses the eastern transport corridor, as intended. The mistake made was not reinforcing the main traffic flow by carrying out the traffic calming measures in Haughton village - if these measures had been carried out you wouldn't be so keen to go through Haughton village[/p][/quote]The so called Eastern Transit Corridor is never busy at any time of the day. The only hold up is on the Through-a-bout. Try getting out of Hundens Lane end. Impossible. You are either blocked by stationary traffic, or by people speeding through the lights before they turn red. Spy Boy
  • Score: 5

9:57pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Spy Boy says...

challenger1 wrote:
judygone wrote:
challenger1 wrote:
BMD wrote:
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago.
Why is Bill Dixon responsible ?
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame.
Accepted, however he can't be held responsible for the design of every road junction designed that the people of Darlington don't like.
Yes, he can. It was Dixon, Williams, Burns, Lyonette and co that signed this off. Their performance on any major project is appalling. Their mistakes cost every one of us money. They have turned a good town into a sprawl of faceless buildings and crappy roads. Now they find that they have run out of money and can't keep the roads in good repair. They can't even keep the white lines painted, the potholes filled in, or high friction coatings at junctions resurfaced.

Darlington's roads and pavements are a total mess. If Bill and his inept crew are not to blame, then who is? If it's a civil contractor that has screwed it all up, then let Bill take them to court. No! Hold that. When the council take people to court they end up vastly out of pocket. Look at The Dolphin Centre fiasco. Our council leaders and their un-elected officials are a joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on us. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]judygone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.[/p][/quote]Bill dixon was deputy Leader of the Council from 1991 until 2011 when he was appointed as Leader of the Council. So he and his fellow councilors are to blame.[/p][/quote]Accepted, however he can't be held responsible for the design of every road junction designed that the people of Darlington don't like.[/p][/quote]Yes, he can. It was Dixon, Williams, Burns, Lyonette and co that signed this off. Their performance on any major project is appalling. Their mistakes cost every one of us money. They have turned a good town into a sprawl of faceless buildings and crappy roads. Now they find that they have run out of money and can't keep the roads in good repair. They can't even keep the white lines painted, the potholes filled in, or high friction coatings at junctions resurfaced. Darlington's roads and pavements are a total mess. If Bill and his inept crew are not to blame, then who is? If it's a civil contractor that has screwed it all up, then let Bill take them to court. No! Hold that. When the council take people to court they end up vastly out of pocket. Look at The Dolphin Centre fiasco. Our council leaders and their un-elected officials are a joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on us. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Spy Boy
  • Score: 11

10:04pm Fri 18 Apr 14

bunt61 says...

Who gives a monkey's??? just drive through it, its only a road junction!!! get on with your life for God's sake!!! lol.
Who gives a monkey's??? just drive through it, its only a road junction!!! get on with your life for God's sake!!! lol. bunt61
  • Score: 14

10:59pm Fri 18 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

challenger1 wrote:
BMD wrote:
Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements.

They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago.
Why is Bill Dixon responsible ?
Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
I would suggest that the obscene £186,000 for Ada Burns and c£100,00+ for the Assistant Directors does suggest the senior management are way overpaid.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that the obscene £186,000 for Ada Burns and c£100,00+ for the Assistant Directors does suggest the senior management are way overpaid. DarloXman
  • Score: 12

8:46am Sat 19 Apr 14

think twice says...

“I know no-one will believe me"
but I am the only one in step, honest.

Bank of Europe is right,
"Instead of a ‘Review later in the year’ why not turn the lights off for ONE MONTH then YOU Bill / Challenger1 can tell the 95% of us we are wrong."

At light traffic times of the day, (20 hours a day) it is not unusual to see one or two cars trundling around the roundabout whilst others sit and wait for no practical reason.
“I know no-one will believe me" but I am the only one in step, honest. Bank of Europe is right, "Instead of a ‘Review later in the year’ why not turn the lights off for ONE MONTH then YOU Bill / Challenger1 can tell the 95% of us we are wrong." At light traffic times of the day, (20 hours a day) it is not unusual to see one or two cars trundling around the roundabout whilst others sit and wait for no practical reason. think twice
  • Score: 6

10:17am Sat 19 Apr 14

BMD says...

challenger1 wrote:
BMD wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.
The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.
There is a huge difference between Council workers and Council officials - in Ada Burns case approximately £166,000.

The Eastern Transport Corridor project actually came in over budget, out of specification and late delivery.

Bill Dixon was on the council that approved the design and land acquisition before submitting the scheme for final approval.

The best people to comment on the through-a-bout are Bus drivers and Taxi drivers - their opinion seems to be in-line with most commenters on this article.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Bill Dixon and the over-paid officials won’t admit their mistakes and poor judgements. They would sooner waste the electorate’s council tax money.[/p][/quote]The throughabout was designed in 2005 - 9 years ago. Why is Bill Dixon responsible ? Also, I think you'll find that the majority of Council workers are not over paid.[/p][/quote]There is a huge difference between Council workers and Council officials - in Ada Burns case approximately £166,000. The Eastern Transport Corridor project actually came in over budget, out of specification and late delivery. Bill Dixon was on the council that approved the design and land acquisition before submitting the scheme for final approval. The best people to comment on the through-a-bout are Bus drivers and Taxi drivers - their opinion seems to be in-line with most commenters on this article. BMD
  • Score: 8

3:51pm Sat 19 Apr 14

hogworth says...

I have been along that road a couple of times when the lights weren't working and it worked just like an ordinary roundabout. Why not make it a roundabout with lights it would be fine.
I have been along that road a couple of times when the lights weren't working and it worked just like an ordinary roundabout. Why not make it a roundabout with lights it would be fine. hogworth
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Sat 19 Apr 14

judygone says...

If any of the darlington councilors had a brain the lights would of been switched off a long time ago. This would of saved them money, on the electric bill. No wait they would rather close down the nursery's or the clubs that disabled people used to use.
If any of the darlington councilors had a brain the lights would of been switched off a long time ago. This would of saved them money, on the electric bill. No wait they would rather close down the nursery's or the clubs that disabled people used to use. judygone
  • Score: 6

6:44pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Alan Macnab says...

The Eastern Transport Corridor was also supposed to relieve the pressure of traffic and delays on Haughton Road and Haughton Village at peak times especially in morning on working days. It hasn't worked. I was sat on a bus going into town from Haughton Village one morning at 8.45 a.m. in Haughton Road leading to the throuhghabout. The traffic was bumper to bumper stretching right back to Haughton Village just like the old days before the ETC was built. I am told this is a normal occurrence. When the traffic lights didn't work the traffic flowed round the throughabout with no hold ups whatsoever. If it reverted to a normal roundabout there would have to be provision made for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road - two pedestrian/cycyclist crossing points before and after the throughabout. I am sore that the route of the 1825 S & D Railway has been obliterated by the throughabout, but that's another story.
The Eastern Transport Corridor was also supposed to relieve the pressure of traffic and delays on Haughton Road and Haughton Village at peak times especially in morning on working days. It hasn't worked. I was sat on a bus going into town from Haughton Village one morning at 8.45 a.m. in Haughton Road leading to the throuhghabout. The traffic was bumper to bumper stretching right back to Haughton Village just like the old days before the ETC was built. I am told this is a normal occurrence. When the traffic lights didn't work the traffic flowed round the throughabout with no hold ups whatsoever. If it reverted to a normal roundabout there would have to be provision made for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road - two pedestrian/cycyclist crossing points before and after the throughabout. I am sore that the route of the 1825 S & D Railway has been obliterated by the throughabout, but that's another story. Alan Macnab
  • Score: 9

12:51am Sun 20 Apr 14

Sanddancer60 says...

I'm with challenger1 - the purpose of the Eastern Transport Corridor was to deliver trafffic to McMullen Road, Lingfield Point and the town centre, coming from the east, without it going through Haughton village. It did that, and relieved the tailbacks from the Haughton Bridge/McMullen Road lights immediately. That meant traffic could get out of Salters Lane South, at the church, and the estate at the top of Stockton Road. The throughabout prioritises traffic coming in and out of the town centre on the through bit because that's why it was built. It may need a bit of work on timings at certain times of the day but making it an ordinary roundabout would just replicate the problems on the Stonebridge roundabout -- too big, not enough gaps in the flow, blockages caused by poor driving -- which is about to be rebuilt because it doesn't work.
I'm with challenger1 - the purpose of the Eastern Transport Corridor was to deliver trafffic to McMullen Road, Lingfield Point and the town centre, coming from the east, without it going through Haughton village. It did that, and relieved the tailbacks from the Haughton Bridge/McMullen Road lights immediately. That meant traffic could get out of Salters Lane South, at the church, and the estate at the top of Stockton Road. The throughabout prioritises traffic coming in and out of the town centre on the through bit because that's why it was built. It may need a bit of work on timings at certain times of the day but making it an ordinary roundabout would just replicate the problems on the Stonebridge roundabout -- too big, not enough gaps in the flow, blockages caused by poor driving -- which is about to be rebuilt because it doesn't work. Sanddancer60
  • Score: 0

5:16am Sun 20 Apr 14

BMD says...

Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse.

Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow. BMD
  • Score: 5

9:50am Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

Alan Macnab wrote:
The Eastern Transport Corridor was also supposed to relieve the pressure of traffic and delays on Haughton Road and Haughton Village at peak times especially in morning on working days. It hasn't worked. I was sat on a bus going into town from Haughton Village one morning at 8.45 a.m. in Haughton Road leading to the throuhghabout. The traffic was bumper to bumper stretching right back to Haughton Village just like the old days before the ETC was built. I am told this is a normal occurrence. When the traffic lights didn't work the traffic flowed round the throughabout with no hold ups whatsoever. If it reverted to a normal roundabout there would have to be provision made for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road - two pedestrian/cycyclist crossing points before and after the throughabout. I am sore that the route of the 1825 S & D Railway has been obliterated by the throughabout, but that's another story.
The traffic on Haughton Road on a morning varies hugely. I leave the house at pretty much the same time each morning; the traffic from the throughabout will either be backed up to the top of the hill by Wickes, or there'll be just half a dozen cars at the throughabout.

I've been travelling down Haughton Road daily for the last 12 years, plus three years in the mid-90s. The traffic is, generally, far better than it was before the throughabout.

A big cause of congestion heading out of town on a morning is the lack of a dedicated right-turn phase into Vicarage Road. There are often cars waiting to turn into there which back right up to the top of the bridge over the railway.

And, the bus lane outside Bannatynes should be on the other side of the road. It's no help to buses at all where it is but would make a huge difference during the teatime rush hour.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: The Eastern Transport Corridor was also supposed to relieve the pressure of traffic and delays on Haughton Road and Haughton Village at peak times especially in morning on working days. It hasn't worked. I was sat on a bus going into town from Haughton Village one morning at 8.45 a.m. in Haughton Road leading to the throuhghabout. The traffic was bumper to bumper stretching right back to Haughton Village just like the old days before the ETC was built. I am told this is a normal occurrence. When the traffic lights didn't work the traffic flowed round the throughabout with no hold ups whatsoever. If it reverted to a normal roundabout there would have to be provision made for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road - two pedestrian/cycyclist crossing points before and after the throughabout. I am sore that the route of the 1825 S & D Railway has been obliterated by the throughabout, but that's another story.[/p][/quote]The traffic on Haughton Road on a morning varies hugely. I leave the house at pretty much the same time each morning; the traffic from the throughabout will either be backed up to the top of the hill by Wickes, or there'll be just half a dozen cars at the throughabout. I've been travelling down Haughton Road daily for the last 12 years, plus three years in the mid-90s. The traffic is, generally, far better than it was before the throughabout. A big cause of congestion heading out of town on a morning is the lack of a dedicated right-turn phase into Vicarage Road. There are often cars waiting to turn into there which back right up to the top of the bridge over the railway. And, the bus lane outside Bannatynes should be on the other side of the road. It's no help to buses at all where it is but would make a huge difference during the teatime rush hour. miketually
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

BMD wrote:
Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse.

Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout.

Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic.

Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed. miketually
  • Score: 1

10:30am Sun 20 Apr 14

Browsing says...

I am not advocating removing cars from our roads, but I think we should all keep in mind that all the traffic problems around town are, in general due to the volume of traffic. Some junction designs do not help the situation, though my experience of the through about is generally positive. If all the people who are making negative comments stop and consider how many vehicles are trying to use the junction at the peak time you will quickly realise that no system will eradicate the queues. Suggesting a normal roundabout would solve the problem is speculative as it has never been tried.
I am not advocating removing cars from our roads, but I think we should all keep in mind that all the traffic problems around town are, in general due to the volume of traffic. Some junction designs do not help the situation, though my experience of the through about is generally positive. If all the people who are making negative comments stop and consider how many vehicles are trying to use the junction at the peak time you will quickly realise that no system will eradicate the queues. Suggesting a normal roundabout would solve the problem is speculative as it has never been tried. Browsing
  • Score: 2

11:33am Sun 20 Apr 14

BMD says...

miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane.

As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work.

It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout. BMD
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane.

As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work.

It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC.

Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening.

Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.[/p][/quote]In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow? miketually
  • Score: 0

11:55am Sun 20 Apr 14

loan_star says...

miketually wrote:
BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane.

As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work.

It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC.

Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening.

Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?
There have been times when the lights have been off all day and we don't get any tailbacks from any direction.
As for the comment above about Stonegate, the only time we have a tailback there is when traffic has to filter into one lane on the Northgate approach and when the throughabout traffic is tailed all the way back to Halfords.
See the connection there? Supposed improvements made by DBC planners have simply moved the problem elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.[/p][/quote]In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?[/p][/quote]There have been times when the lights have been off all day and we don't get any tailbacks from any direction. As for the comment above about Stonegate, the only time we have a tailback there is when traffic has to filter into one lane on the Northgate approach and when the throughabout traffic is tailed all the way back to Halfords. See the connection there? Supposed improvements made by DBC planners have simply moved the problem elsewhere. loan_star
  • Score: 2

12:54pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Dr Sconnie says...

Why can't it be a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. I drive all over the country in much busier areas than Darlington and see working fine. To have to sit at the lights at 8.30am on a sat morning with no other traffic around is just frustrating. Re traffic calming in haughton village, it isn't needed. When the new road first opened one do the aims was to reroute traffic away from haughton village. However after spending 11/12 million they got the signing wrong and it was still directing traffic through haughton to the town centre and the signage from the ring road referred instead to Central Park with no mention of the town centre.
However more worrying, will be the increase in traffic in this area if the burdon hill housing development goes ahead on the north east corner
Why can't it be a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. I drive all over the country in much busier areas than Darlington and see working fine. To have to sit at the lights at 8.30am on a sat morning with no other traffic around is just frustrating. Re traffic calming in haughton village, it isn't needed. When the new road first opened one do the aims was to reroute traffic away from haughton village. However after spending 11/12 million they got the signing wrong and it was still directing traffic through haughton to the town centre and the signage from the ring road referred instead to Central Park with no mention of the town centre. However more worrying, will be the increase in traffic in this area if the burdon hill housing development goes ahead on the north east corner Dr Sconnie
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Dr Sconnie says...

Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances.
I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town. Dr Sconnie
  • Score: 2

4:22pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Alan Macnab says...

I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.
I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known. Alan Macnab
  • Score: 8

7:06pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Border Terrier says...

Then you have the bliddy Tech college crossings to contend with as well.
Why wasn't the college sited over Faverdale or somewhere?
Then you have the bliddy Tech college crossings to contend with as well. Why wasn't the college sited over Faverdale or somewhere? Border Terrier
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Sun 20 Apr 14

magicmoment says...

Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time….
Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!!
Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time…. Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!! magicmoment
  • Score: 8

8:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

Dr Sconnie wrote:
Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances.
I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.[/p][/quote]If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way. miketually
  • Score: -2

8:06pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

Alan Macnab wrote:
I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.
I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road.

Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.[/p][/quote]I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road. Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something. miketually
  • Score: -2

8:07pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

magicmoment wrote:
Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time….
Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!!
That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town.
[quote][p][bold]magicmoment[/bold] wrote: Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time…. Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!![/p][/quote]That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town. miketually
  • Score: -5

8:20pm Sun 20 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.
I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road.

Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something.
The throughabout did NOT destroy part of a World Heritage Site - it had already been destroyed and nothing was remaining when work started in that area. The track was found immediately east of McMullen Road, archaeologists were called in who recorded the location and took photographs - this was all reported in the northern Echo at the time.
Their advice, which was followed, was to cover the track and not disturb it.
The track is still there, under about 3m of fill material, so it could be dug up in future if anybody wanted to. No evidence of the track bed was found beneath where the road is now during construction - all of the sleepers etc have long since gone.
No destruction was carried out at the Red Hall traffic lights as nothing was there.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.[/p][/quote]I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road. Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something.[/p][/quote]The throughabout did NOT destroy part of a World Heritage Site - it had already been destroyed and nothing was remaining when work started in that area. The track was found immediately east of McMullen Road, archaeologists were called in who recorded the location and took photographs - this was all reported in the northern Echo at the time. Their advice, which was followed, was to cover the track and not disturb it. The track is still there, under about 3m of fill material, so it could be dug up in future if anybody wanted to. No evidence of the track bed was found beneath where the road is now during construction - all of the sleepers etc have long since gone. No destruction was carried out at the Red Hall traffic lights as nothing was there. challenger1
  • Score: -1

8:21pm Sun 20 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

miketually wrote:
BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane.

As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work.

It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC.

Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening.

Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?
When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ?
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.[/p][/quote]In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?[/p][/quote]When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ? challenger1
  • Score: -6

8:33pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

challenger1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.
I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road.

Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something.
The throughabout did NOT destroy part of a World Heritage Site - it had already been destroyed and nothing was remaining when work started in that area. The track was found immediately east of McMullen Road, archaeologists were called in who recorded the location and took photographs - this was all reported in the northern Echo at the time.
Their advice, which was followed, was to cover the track and not disturb it.
The track is still there, under about 3m of fill material, so it could be dug up in future if anybody wanted to. No evidence of the track bed was found beneath where the road is now during construction - all of the sleepers etc have long since gone.
No destruction was carried out at the Red Hall traffic lights as nothing was there.
Pfft, you can prove anything with facts ;)
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: I am never disappointed that 'the DBC can do no wrong' people always come on here when the throughabout is criticised. The construction of the throughabout destroyed part of a potential World Heritage Site - the route of the 1825 Stockton and Darlington Railway went across where the throughabout now is at the northern westerly point. There was similar destruction at the Red Hall traffic lights and now the Burdon Hill development will cut across the original trackbed. The interesting thing is the developers did not know that such an important historic site existed and will be seriously damaged if the Burdon Hill development goes ahead because the Council did not see fit to tell them. Fortunately I was in the room and told the developers. Otherwise they would never have known.[/p][/quote]I'm here for non-throughabout issues too. You'll also notice my post contained two criticisms of the scheme further down Haughton Road. Is the trackbed itself worth saving, or just the route of the trackbed plus notable features along its length? 25 years ago, the trackbed was partially overgrown and covered in rubbish; at least now it's being used for something.[/p][/quote]The throughabout did NOT destroy part of a World Heritage Site - it had already been destroyed and nothing was remaining when work started in that area. The track was found immediately east of McMullen Road, archaeologists were called in who recorded the location and took photographs - this was all reported in the northern Echo at the time. Their advice, which was followed, was to cover the track and not disturb it. The track is still there, under about 3m of fill material, so it could be dug up in future if anybody wanted to. No evidence of the track bed was found beneath where the road is now during construction - all of the sleepers etc have long since gone. No destruction was carried out at the Red Hall traffic lights as nothing was there.[/p][/quote]Pfft, you can prove anything with facts ;) miketually
  • Score: -3

8:39pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Alan Macnab says...

Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled.

The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route.

I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.
Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled. The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route. I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen. Alan Macnab
  • Score: 6

8:40pm Sun 20 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled.

The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route.

I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.
Good for you - go for it !
[quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled. The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route. I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.[/p][/quote]Good for you - go for it ! challenger1
  • Score: -1

9:13pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Dr Sconnie says...

miketually wrote:
Dr Sconnie wrote:
Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances.
I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.
Since when? Living in haughton we have always travelled into town via haughton road as it was the most direct route. Now we often go mcmullan / yarm road into town.
I maintain my initial point, why not have a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. This works really well in much busier areas
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.[/p][/quote]If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.[/p][/quote]Since when? Living in haughton we have always travelled into town via haughton road as it was the most direct route. Now we often go mcmullan / yarm road into town. I maintain my initial point, why not have a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. This works really well in much busier areas Dr Sconnie
  • Score: 4

10:40pm Sun 20 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

miketually wrote:
Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards.
I wondered how long it would be before the Councils number one stooge popped up. Same old crap from the anti-car brigade,
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards.[/p][/quote]I wondered how long it would be before the Councils number one stooge popped up. Same old crap from the anti-car brigade, thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: 3

10:40pm Sun 20 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

miketually wrote:
Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards.
I wondered how long it would be before the Councils number one stooge popped up. Same old crap from the anti-car brigade,
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: Making it into a standard roundabout would be a step backwards.[/p][/quote]I wondered how long it would be before the Councils number one stooge popped up. Same old crap from the anti-car brigade, thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: 2

10:44pm Sun 20 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

miketually wrote:
magicmoment wrote:
Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time….
Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!!
That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town.
Delusional as ever.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]magicmoment[/bold] wrote: Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time…. Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!![/p][/quote]That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town.[/p][/quote]Delusional as ever. thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: 4

10:52pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

Dr Sconnie wrote:
miketually wrote:
Dr Sconnie wrote:
Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances.
I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.
Since when? Living in haughton we have always travelled into town via haughton road as it was the most direct route. Now we often go mcmullan / yarm road into town.
I maintain my initial point, why not have a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. This works really well in much busier areas
Since the new road went in.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.[/p][/quote]If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.[/p][/quote]Since when? Living in haughton we have always travelled into town via haughton road as it was the most direct route. Now we often go mcmullan / yarm road into town. I maintain my initial point, why not have a normal roundabout with traffic lights operating at peak times only. This works really well in much busier areas[/p][/quote]Since the new road went in. miketually
  • Score: -5

10:53pm Sun 20 Apr 14

miketually says...

thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth
wrote:
miketually wrote:
magicmoment wrote:
Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time….
Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!!
That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town.
Delusional as ever.
Love you too
[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl ethetruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]magicmoment[/bold] wrote: Every day I hear about people moaning about this DARLINGTON LABOUR COUNCIL. . yet they get voted in every time…. Its about time we voted them out or they will think they can do anything and everything to this darlington town!![/p][/quote]That's because the moaners on here don't actually reflect the views of most people in the town.[/p][/quote]Delusional as ever.[/p][/quote]Love you too miketually
  • Score: -7

11:15pm Sun 20 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

The reason our beloved council won't change this terrible through about is because it would cause great embarrassment and they are pig headed, drunk on power corrupt self serving pigs who couldn't give a monkeys about anyone but themselves. Ive communicated several times in the past with a Winstanley stooge and its blatantly obvious to me that he and his crew will do what they like when they like and will waste our money as they see fit. It's a disgrace what these zealots are doing to our road system. They all need sacking for dereliction of duty to the tax paying public. Shame on them all.
The reason our beloved council won't change this terrible through about is because it would cause great embarrassment and they are pig headed, drunk on power corrupt self serving pigs who couldn't give a monkeys about anyone but themselves. Ive communicated several times in the past with a Winstanley stooge and its blatantly obvious to me that he and his crew will do what they like when they like and will waste our money as they see fit. It's a disgrace what these zealots are doing to our road system. They all need sacking for dereliction of duty to the tax paying public. Shame on them all. thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: 6

2:40am Mon 21 Apr 14

Mr Angry Man says...

I agree lights are a disaster the 1 time i came across lights not workin traffic flowed effortsly. Only problem is darlo council are thick and dont care.As for the planning department go back to school.
I agree lights are a disaster the 1 time i came across lights not workin traffic flowed effortsly. Only problem is darlo council are thick and dont care.As for the planning department go back to school. Mr Angry Man
  • Score: 5

5:17am Mon 21 Apr 14

BMD says...

challenger1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?
When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ?
Obviously you are sitting too long in your council ivory tower, Bus and Taxi drivers have to use the Throughabout several times a day (During peak and non-peak periods)

Judging by the pervious and current road modifications, they couldn’t do any worse than the charlatans posing as Darlington's experts in highway design.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.[/p][/quote]In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?[/p][/quote]When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ?[/p][/quote]Obviously you are sitting too long in your council ivory tower, Bus and Taxi drivers have to use the Throughabout several times a day (During peak and non-peak periods) Judging by the pervious and current road modifications, they couldn’t do any worse than the charlatans posing as Darlington's experts in highway design. BMD
  • Score: 3

7:18am Mon 21 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

challenger1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
BMD wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.
Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.
The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane.

As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work.

It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.
In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC.

Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening.

Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?
When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ?
Your comment is very reflective of the attitudes of the lazy thieving pigs who run our council. Its a typical attitude and vibe you get from those who work in that huge publically funded Ivory tower called the Town Hall. You represent them well.

Perhaps if people like you and the other thieves in DBC would listen and swallow some pride from time to time, things might change for the better.
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Sanddancer60 you are wrong about the throughabout and the removeal of Stonebridge roundabout will only make things worse. Traffic lights stop the traffic, roundabouts allow the traffic to flow.[/p][/quote]Most vehicles heading out of town go from Haughton Road to the ETC at the throughabout. Picture it as a normal roundabout, then imagine sitting in the queue of traffic at Barton Street or Haughton Road heading into town, waiting for a gap to appear in the flow of traffic. Roundabouts work if the traffic in/out of each road is fairly even. Otherwise, lights are needed.[/p][/quote]The current Throughabout has two lanes; therefore the traffic using the ETC would use the inner lane. As it has been commented many times previously, the traffic flows better when the lights don’t work. It would be more advisable for the council to seek the opinions of taxi or bus drivers whom are constantly using the throughabout.[/p][/quote]In my experience, most people leaving Barton Street are heading for the ETC, so would still clash with people leaving town heading for the ETC. Have the lights ever failed during a teatime term-time rush hour, when the road's busiest? I don't remember it happening. Are bus and taxi drivers impartial, unbiased observers of traffic flow?[/p][/quote]When did bus and taxi drivers become experts in highway design ?[/p][/quote]Your comment is very reflective of the attitudes of the lazy thieving pigs who run our council. Its a typical attitude and vibe you get from those who work in that huge publically funded Ivory tower called the Town Hall. You represent them well. Perhaps if people like you and the other thieves in DBC would listen and swallow some pride from time to time, things might change for the better. thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: -2

7:38am Mon 21 Apr 14

challenger1 says...

I don't work for DBC and never have done - they don't pay enough to employ me - I earn far more elsewhere.
I don't work for DBC and never have done - they don't pay enough to employ me - I earn far more elsewhere. challenger1
  • Score: -4

8:55am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled.

The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route.

I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.
I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development?

Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled. The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route. I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.[/p][/quote]I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development? Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route. miketually
  • Score: -1

9:21am Mon 21 Apr 14

thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth says...

miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled.

The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route.

I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.
I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development?

Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route.
Stick to the story please. It's not that difficult to do surely - not even for you.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled. The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route. I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.[/p][/quote]I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development? Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route.[/p][/quote]Stick to the story please. It's not that difficult to do surely - not even for you. thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth
  • Score: 5

9:51am Mon 21 Apr 14

BMD says...

miketually wrote:
Dr Sconnie wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.
miketually wrote: If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.

So the council is dictating what route you must use when traveling into Town. You are totally delusional; it was a simple land grab disguised as a Haughton Village traffic calming exercise, which ended over budget, out of specification and late delivery time.

Referring to Stonebridge Roundabout, Mr Winstanley from DBC said: “What we are trying to do is manage that congestion to give each motorist the chance to get through the junction. There will be people sat at traffic lights but they will get through.”

Mr Winstanley from DBC is admitting that the new traffic light system at Stonebridge will cause more delays at non-peak periods.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.[/p][/quote]If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.[/p][/quote]miketually wrote: If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way. So the council is dictating what route you must use when traveling into Town. You are totally delusional; it was a simple land grab disguised as a Haughton Village traffic calming exercise, which ended over budget, out of specification and late delivery time. Referring to Stonebridge Roundabout, Mr Winstanley from DBC said: “What we are trying to do is manage that congestion to give each motorist the chance to get through the junction. There will be people sat at traffic lights but they will get through.” Mr Winstanley from DBC is admitting that the new traffic light system at Stonebridge will cause more delays at non-peak periods. BMD
  • Score: 5

10:06am Mon 21 Apr 14

Bank of Europe says...

I just hope to god that its NOT the same people doing the current Town Center road works as the debacle of Haughton Road. I have never known any other council who is so fascinated about traffic lights.... WHO in the right mind plants bushes in the direct eye line to oncoming traffic beggars belief the concept of roundabouts is that it allows the flow of traffic.... Haughton Road Round about is big enough not to have lights on at all
I just hope to god that its NOT the same people doing the current Town Center road works as the debacle of Haughton Road. I have never known any other council who is so fascinated about traffic lights.... WHO in the right mind plants bushes in the direct eye line to oncoming traffic beggars belief the concept of roundabouts is that it allows the flow of traffic.... Haughton Road Round about is big enough not to have lights on at all Bank of Europe
  • Score: 6

10:20am Mon 21 Apr 14

Alan Macnab says...

Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here. Alan Macnab
  • Score: 2

11:01am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth
wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled.

The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route.

I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.
I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development?

Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route.
Stick to the story please. It's not that difficult to do surely - not even for you.
Are you talking to me, or to Alan who raised the issue of the S&D railway? I don't know if you've participated in a conversation or discussion before, but they often also include digressions into other related topics.

I'm just surprised nobody has brought up an elected mayor, the pedestrian heart, a bus station, or wheelie bins yet.

As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind.
[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl ethetruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. Yes it is worth saving it is part of our heritage. The first steam powered passenger railway ran along that track in 1825. The Stockton and Darlington Railway changed the way people travelled. The vision of the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is T to work with statutory, non statutory and voluntary bodies to identify, preserve, promote and develop the 1825 Stockton & Darlington Railway line as an educational, cultural and historic site of international significance and to develop its recreational, economic and tourism potential. The long term vision is to secure National Heritage Listing for England and World Heritage Status for the 1825 route. I am not going to be deflected from this by the negative comments. It's going to happen.[/p][/quote]I think there's a great deal to be said for 'saving' the route of the track, plus key features along its length. But preserving the entirety of the trackbed which, as commented above, is either missing or buried under 3m of infill at the expense of any and all development? Working to make the 'five pound note' bridge accessible from the town centre by opening up a footpath by the river, for example, would be excellent, as would a walking/cycling trail along the length of the original route.[/p][/quote]Stick to the story please. It's not that difficult to do surely - not even for you.[/p][/quote]Are you talking to me, or to Alan who raised the issue of the S&D railway? I don't know if you've participated in a conversation or discussion before, but they often also include digressions into other related topics. I'm just surprised nobody has brought up an elected mayor, the pedestrian heart, a bus station, or wheelie bins yet. As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind. miketually
  • Score: -3

11:03am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

BMD wrote:
miketually wrote:
Dr Sconnie wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.
If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.
miketually wrote: If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.

So the council is dictating what route you must use when traveling into Town. You are totally delusional; it was a simple land grab disguised as a Haughton Village traffic calming exercise, which ended over budget, out of specification and late delivery time.

Referring to Stonebridge Roundabout, Mr Winstanley from DBC said: “What we are trying to do is manage that congestion to give each motorist the chance to get through the junction. There will be people sat at traffic lights but they will get through.”

Mr Winstanley from DBC is admitting that the new traffic light system at Stonebridge will cause more delays at non-peak periods.
The council aren't dictating anything. You're perfectly at liberty to take a different route that will take you longer and mean sitting in a queue, but it might be sensible to travel up McMullen Road and down the ETC instead, which will save you time and make Haughton Road more pleasant for the people living there.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Sconnie[/bold] wrote: Sitting at the roundabout at quiet times when there is no traffic and needing to wait for the lights to change can be very frustrating. Why can't we make it a normal roundabout with lights which operate at peak times only instead of imposing an over the top arrangement all of the time. I drive all over the country and regularly travel through areas with much heavier traffic than found here and these arrangements work fine in those circumstances. I get the reason of moving traffic through the EC and reducing in haughton village. But what about hose of us living in haughton, why should we give precedence to traffic coming in and out of town. I avoid the throughabout preferring to go Macmullan road on the rare occasions that I go into town.[/p][/quote]If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way.[/p][/quote]miketually wrote: If you live in Haughton you're supposed to go up McMullen Road and then down the ETC to get to town. It's faster and reduces traffic noise for those living on Haugton Road. It always surprises me when people don't go that way. So the council is dictating what route you must use when traveling into Town. You are totally delusional; it was a simple land grab disguised as a Haughton Village traffic calming exercise, which ended over budget, out of specification and late delivery time. Referring to Stonebridge Roundabout, Mr Winstanley from DBC said: “What we are trying to do is manage that congestion to give each motorist the chance to get through the junction. There will be people sat at traffic lights but they will get through.” Mr Winstanley from DBC is admitting that the new traffic light system at Stonebridge will cause more delays at non-peak periods.[/p][/quote]The council aren't dictating anything. You're perfectly at liberty to take a different route that will take you longer and mean sitting in a queue, but it might be sensible to travel up McMullen Road and down the ETC instead, which will save you time and make Haughton Road more pleasant for the people living there. miketually
  • Score: -4

11:04am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling. miketually
  • Score: -4

11:13am Mon 21 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?
There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing? Homshaw1
  • Score: 6

11:27am Mon 21 Apr 14

loan_star says...

miketually says "As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind."

Are you for real? I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm. Then I dare you to come back on here and say there are no delays!
miketually says "As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind." Are you for real? I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm. Then I dare you to come back on here and say there are no delays! loan_star
  • Score: 5

11:50am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

loan_star wrote:
miketually says "As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind."

Are you for real? I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm. Then I dare you to come back on here and say there are no delays!
I'm not saying that there aren't delays. I don't think anybody is.
[quote][p][bold]loan_star[/bold] wrote: miketually says "As for the original topic, is there much more to add? Some people think it causes delays and others don't; unless there are some new facts, I can't see than anything said here is going to change anyone's mind." Are you for real? I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm. Then I dare you to come back on here and say there are no delays![/p][/quote]I'm not saying that there aren't delays. I don't think anybody is. miketually
  • Score: -6

11:50am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?
What makes you say that they're not?
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?[/p][/quote]What makes you say that they're not? miketually
  • Score: -4

11:51am Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

" I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm"

For the record, those are exactly the times that I use Haughton Road each day, and have done for more than a decade.
" I suggest you try Haughton Road heading out of town or try and get off Albert Hill at the throughabout, especially between 8 & 9am and 4.30 - 6pm" For the record, those are exactly the times that I use Haughton Road each day, and have done for more than a decade. miketually
  • Score: -4

12:16pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike.

Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less.

Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.[/p][/quote]Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike. Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less. Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent. Homshaw1
  • Score: 3

12:20pm Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike.

Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less.

Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.
I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'.

The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :)

The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear.
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.[/p][/quote]Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike. Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less. Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.[/p][/quote]I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'. The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :) The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear. miketually
  • Score: -2

12:36pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

miketually wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?
What makes you say that they're not?
Because if they had and the simulation exercise had been done properly it would have predicted quite accurately what the outcome would have been and it would not have gone ahead in the way it has and wasted large amounts of taxpayers money.

I don't know if it has since been changed but the traffic light at the college used to stop traffic going up Haugton Rd even through there was no traffic waiting to come out of the college. A "state of the art" traffic scheme this was not.

There are plenty of people posting on here who seem to know what is going on at the council. So could someone please say whether a proper simulation exercise was carried out to predict traffic flows and maximum/minimum delays before all this money was spent.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?[/p][/quote]What makes you say that they're not?[/p][/quote]Because if they had and the simulation exercise had been done properly it would have predicted quite accurately what the outcome would have been and it would not have gone ahead in the way it has and wasted large amounts of taxpayers money. I don't know if it has since been changed but the traffic light at the college used to stop traffic going up Haugton Rd even through there was no traffic waiting to come out of the college. A "state of the art" traffic scheme this was not. There are plenty of people posting on here who seem to know what is going on at the council. So could someone please say whether a proper simulation exercise was carried out to predict traffic flows and maximum/minimum delays before all this money was spent. Homshaw1
  • Score: 4

12:44pm Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?
What makes you say that they're not?
Because if they had and the simulation exercise had been done properly it would have predicted quite accurately what the outcome would have been and it would not have gone ahead in the way it has and wasted large amounts of taxpayers money.

I don't know if it has since been changed but the traffic light at the college used to stop traffic going up Haugton Rd even through there was no traffic waiting to come out of the college. A "state of the art" traffic scheme this was not.

There are plenty of people posting on here who seem to know what is going on at the council. So could someone please say whether a proper simulation exercise was carried out to predict traffic flows and maximum/minimum delays before all this money was spent.
Whatever anyone says here, you still won't know for sure if it really was. Why not email the Highways department and ask?
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: There are sophisticated modelling techniques available to work out the best way to configure traffic. Why aren't they being used instead of wasting millions of taxpayers money guessing?[/p][/quote]What makes you say that they're not?[/p][/quote]Because if they had and the simulation exercise had been done properly it would have predicted quite accurately what the outcome would have been and it would not have gone ahead in the way it has and wasted large amounts of taxpayers money. I don't know if it has since been changed but the traffic light at the college used to stop traffic going up Haugton Rd even through there was no traffic waiting to come out of the college. A "state of the art" traffic scheme this was not. There are plenty of people posting on here who seem to know what is going on at the council. So could someone please say whether a proper simulation exercise was carried out to predict traffic flows and maximum/minimum delays before all this money was spent.[/p][/quote]Whatever anyone says here, you still won't know for sure if it really was. Why not email the Highways department and ask? miketually
  • Score: -2

12:49pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

miketually wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike.

Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less.

Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.
I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'.

The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :)

The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear.
It's not "bloody brilliant" by any standards all they've done is allow you to ride on the path. It needs a proper bridge and an eight year wait seems indicative of the importance the council attaches cycling which is good for both health and the environment.

People young and old should be able to cycle to the Town Centre easily. If nothing else it would help take the pressure off roads
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.[/p][/quote]Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike. Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less. Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.[/p][/quote]I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'. The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :) The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear.[/p][/quote]It's not "bloody brilliant" by any standards all they've done is allow you to ride on the path. It needs a proper bridge and an eight year wait seems indicative of the importance the council attaches cycling which is good for both health and the environment. People young and old should be able to cycle to the Town Centre easily. If nothing else it would help take the pressure off roads Homshaw1
  • Score: 1

1:01pm Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike.

Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less.

Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.
I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'.

The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :)

The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear.
It's not "bloody brilliant" by any standards all they've done is allow you to ride on the path. It needs a proper bridge and an eight year wait seems indicative of the importance the council attaches cycling which is good for both health and the environment.

People young and old should be able to cycle to the Town Centre easily. If nothing else it would help take the pressure off roads
My mam has started riding into town from Haughton, since this bike path was put in. At that level, it's a success.

It's considerably better than some paint on the road or weaving round some back streets. If you compare the experience of getting from Haughton to the town centre with getting there from Harrowgate Hill or Cockerton...

It's **** but it's better than some of the other **** in town.

If every main road in the town had received the same level of infrastructure as a result of the Local Motion/Cycle Demo Town project, I'd have been overjoyed. Sadly, we just got a lot of leaflets and jute shopping bags instead.
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.[/p][/quote]Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike. Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less. Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.[/p][/quote]I meant specifically the bit by the ETC, from the throughabout to the 'green bridge'. The route from town could be better by continental standards, but it's bloody brilliant by UK/Darlington standards :) The new bridge will make a big difference, it's such a shame that we've had to wait eight years for it to (almost) appear.[/p][/quote]It's not "bloody brilliant" by any standards all they've done is allow you to ride on the path. It needs a proper bridge and an eight year wait seems indicative of the importance the council attaches cycling which is good for both health and the environment. People young and old should be able to cycle to the Town Centre easily. If nothing else it would help take the pressure off roads[/p][/quote]My mam has started riding into town from Haughton, since this bike path was put in. At that level, it's a success. It's considerably better than some paint on the road or weaving round some back streets. If you compare the experience of getting from Haughton to the town centre with getting there from Harrowgate Hill or Cockerton... It's **** but it's better than some of the other **** in town. If every main road in the town had received the same level of infrastructure as a result of the Local Motion/Cycle Demo Town project, I'd have been overjoyed. Sadly, we just got a lot of leaflets and jute shopping bags instead. miketually
  • Score: 1

1:07pm Mon 21 Apr 14

miketually says...

If you want more/better infrastructure, it'd be great if you could visit space4cycling.org.uk and use the form to let your local councillors know.
If you want more/better infrastructure, it'd be great if you could visit space4cycling.org.uk and use the form to let your local councillors know. miketually
  • Score: -4

1:09pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

Right I've emailed the Highways Department. I will update you with their reply.
Right I've emailed the Highways Department. I will update you with their reply. Homshaw1
  • Score: 4

1:19pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Sanddancer60 says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
miketually wrote:
Alan Macnab wrote:
Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.
This sounds great.

In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.
Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike.

Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less.

Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.
Pedestrians walking in the cycle lane isn't a design fault. It's a people fault.
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Macnab[/bold] wrote: Mike. It would be wonderful having a cycle/walk way from the Five Pound Note Bridge into town. The Friends are working very hard with the Brussleton Incline Group in Shildon to open up the entire length of the original 1825 route of the S & D. We have a map of the original line which has been checked, double checked and treble checked for accuracy, but it must be 100% accurate for funding purposes. The line is now on Google Earth. The Councillors in Shildon can see the economic benefits of this because the route goes right through the centre of their town. Rail trails in the USA have been found to contribute to economic regeneration and the creation of jobs. So if it works there it can work here.[/p][/quote]This sounds great. In my opinion, construction of the ETC did a lot to open up part of the route for walking and cycling.[/p][/quote]Considering the money that must have been spent on it even the cycle path does not work very well. You leave the Town Centre and go on the cycle path by Ballantynes. At busy time there are people walking across both the cycle and pedestrian path. Get to the bridge and you need to dismount and cross a crowded bridge with your bike. Alternatively you could use the road but when the road narrows going over the bridge you take your life on the line. The other side of the bridge you have the same problem with pedestrians hogging the cycle track. When you get past the roundabout things improve but that's when you need it less. Could it be better designed? Similar cycle paths are a lot better on the continent.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians walking in the cycle lane isn't a design fault. It's a people fault. Sanddancer60
  • Score: -1

5:09pm Thu 24 Apr 14

mark r says...

challenger1 wrote:
No it isn't.
All of the people who post comments here do not understand the reasons for building a throughabout as opposed to a normal roundabout.
Similarly, the main reason for building the Eastern Transport Corridor was to open up the land along the route for development, which was previously inaccessible and also to provide better access for Lingfield Point, allowing them to create the thousands of jobs they have since created.
If you want to be outraged about anything then ask why the landscaping works were removed from the scheme. The road was supposed to have grassed verges, hedges and trees, especially in the Redhall area. The people of Redhall were promised that trees would be planted next to the road to shield the road from their houses - the scandal is that these were removed at the last minute to save money after they were promised.
there are very few throughabouts in this country because they dont work
the landscaping is an issue for redhall residents well said
the thousands of jobs at lingfield point? which jobs?
[quote][p][bold]challenger1[/bold] wrote: No it isn't. All of the people who post comments here do not understand the reasons for building a throughabout as opposed to a normal roundabout. Similarly, the main reason for building the Eastern Transport Corridor was to open up the land along the route for development, which was previously inaccessible and also to provide better access for Lingfield Point, allowing them to create the thousands of jobs they have since created. If you want to be outraged about anything then ask why the landscaping works were removed from the scheme. The road was supposed to have grassed verges, hedges and trees, especially in the Redhall area. The people of Redhall were promised that trees would be planted next to the road to shield the road from their houses - the scandal is that these were removed at the last minute to save money after they were promised.[/p][/quote]there are very few throughabouts in this country because they dont work the landscaping is an issue for redhall residents well said the thousands of jobs at lingfield point? which jobs? mark r
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree