Motorists could face fines if they use new Watford Health Campus link road

Plan of the health campus

Plan of the health campus

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

Motorists could face fines for trying to use the new link road to Watford General Hospital without an approved reason.

Watford’s MP has criticised council plans to prevent residents from using the new taxpayer-funded road, between Dalton Way and Watford General.

The new road is due to serve the hospital and 700-home development planned for the regeneration of the area behind Vicarage Road.

Conservative Richard Harrington is mounting a campaign against proposals, which could see automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras installed along the new road.

Drivers caught using the road for a non-health campus purpose, by setting off all the cameras, could be fined.

As well as blue light services, the road will also be used by other hospital non-emergency traffic, residents, businesses and associated services located on the Watford Health Campus.

Watford Observer:

Mr Harrington said that the road could alleviate congestion in the town, especially around Bushey Arches and the Ring Road.

He said: "They (Watford Borough Council) say that an eye will be kept on the road to see if improvements are needed, but we all know that improvements are needed now to alleviate congestions at Bushey Arches, on the Ring Road and in West Watford - if we have the chance to do this now then we should.

"Yes the road will help alleviate pressure and improve hospital access which I fully support, but it could do so much more.

"I accept this may mean some further work, for example there has been some additional excavation into the redundant railway embankment, but the benefits could be really significant for local people."

Watford Borough Council said that the main goal of the road has been to improve access to the hospital, particularly for emergency vehicles.

Peter Nelson, Watford Health Campus spokesman, said: "The primary purpose of the new road has always been to improve access to Watford Hospital, particularly for emergency vehicles. This has been clear since it was given the go-ahead in 2007 and was also made clear in the planning application that was submitted in 2013."

Mr Nelson added: "Allowing unlimited access to the road would simply cause congestion and compromise the response times for emergency vehicles."

He said that further congestion will be alleviated as, by building the road, the main entrance to the hospital would be relocated to the south of the building, improving traffic in Wiggenhall Road and Vicarage Road.

Mr Harrington is lobbying for turns to be added to the stretch where it crosses Wiggenhall Road, so that residents coming from Oxhey could turn right and access the M1, thereby bypassing Bushey Arches altogether.

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:35pm Fri 16 May 14

angryangryangry says...

How ridiculous! Surely if us the taxpayer is paying for it we can use it!

So if someone happens to turn down the round in error they will get fined, another cash cow for the council!
How ridiculous! Surely if us the taxpayer is paying for it we can use it! So if someone happens to turn down the round in error they will get fined, another cash cow for the council! angryangryangry
  • Score: 18

3:11pm Fri 16 May 14

TRT says...

Frankly, the road should not be built at all. It's going across a flood plain, that's also one of the best sports fields in the borough, it's going to destroy a river margin which scores very highly on the index for amphibian habitats, it's not going to do a damned thing for alleviating even the congestion caused by the hospital, as Waterfields Way is chock-a-block most of the day anyway as is Bushey Arches.

Bushey Arches and Waterfields way could benefit from a few tweaks of the road anyway by bridging the Colne again slightly west of the present bridge, shallowing the bend onto Dalton way and letting the old bridge become two southbound lanes, digging in the bus stop by the Mercedes Garage, so that it has a proper bay, and enforcing the no right turn into Wickes, which has currently become a very ignored thing.
Frankly, the road should not be built at all. It's going across a flood plain, that's also one of the best sports fields in the borough, it's going to destroy a river margin which scores very highly on the index for amphibian habitats, it's not going to do a damned thing for alleviating even the congestion caused by the hospital, as Waterfields Way is chock-a-block most of the day anyway as is Bushey Arches. Bushey Arches and Waterfields way could benefit from a few tweaks of the road anyway by bridging the Colne again slightly west of the present bridge, shallowing the bend onto Dalton way and letting the old bridge become two southbound lanes, digging in the bus stop by the Mercedes Garage, so that it has a proper bay, and enforcing the no right turn into Wickes, which has currently become a very ignored thing. TRT
  • Score: 15

3:18pm Fri 16 May 14

The Rover says...

Seems ridiculous building a road to bypass most of West Watford and then not allow anyone to use it. Have they forgotten that is us taxpayers that are funding the road. If the road has 2 lanes in each direction then one could be for emergency vehicles and hospital traffic, and the other for all other traffic. It may cost more to do this but if it's not done it would be a massive wasted opportunity to reduce traffic driving through West Watford
Seems ridiculous building a road to bypass most of West Watford and then not allow anyone to use it. Have they forgotten that is us taxpayers that are funding the road. If the road has 2 lanes in each direction then one could be for emergency vehicles and hospital traffic, and the other for all other traffic. It may cost more to do this but if it's not done it would be a massive wasted opportunity to reduce traffic driving through West Watford The Rover
  • Score: 11

4:01pm Fri 16 May 14

gusgreen says...

Sorry but the residents around the hospital have known about this for ages and have voiced their opposition to it many times! Its totally bonkers to say that the only people able to use this "LINK" road are those going to the OLD hospital on the "HEALTH CAMPUS" and of course those living in the 750 new homes yet the rest of us taxpaying plebs are deemed not good enough!
Politicians? make you weep or worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry but the residents around the hospital have known about this for ages and have voiced their opposition to it many times! Its totally bonkers to say that the only people able to use this "LINK" road are those going to the OLD hospital on the "HEALTH CAMPUS" and of course those living in the 750 new homes yet the rest of us taxpaying plebs are deemed not good enough! Politicians? make you weep or worse!!!!!!!!!!!!! gusgreen
  • Score: 10

4:17pm Fri 16 May 14

Dr Whoopee says...

Nice one Dorothy! You concrete over the allotments of West Watford, tell people that they can go to Oxhey instead, but then stop them from using the new road that goes there. Genius, sheer genius, - and people will still vote for her - you couldn't make it up..........
Nice one Dorothy! You concrete over the allotments of West Watford, tell people that they can go to Oxhey instead, but then stop them from using the new road that goes there. Genius, sheer genius, - and people will still vote for her - you couldn't make it up.......... Dr Whoopee
  • Score: 18

4:42pm Fri 16 May 14

D_Penn says...

Does it not occur to these geniuses who come up with these crackpot ideas that keeping this road free of traffic means that, inevitably, the cars and lorries that would have used it will simply add to the congestion elsewhere across Watford's already overcrowded roads. Emergency services will therefore move slower as they wade their way through even worse jams, long before they can get to the clear reserved road!

Watford's roads are creaking under the strain of never ending house building. Here we have the exceedingly very rare event of adding space to the road infrastructure, yet the blinkered Council wants to make it off limits to all but a few.

Stupidity is too polite a word to describe it.
Does it not occur to these geniuses who come up with these crackpot ideas that keeping this road free of traffic means that, inevitably, the cars and lorries that would have used it will simply add to the congestion elsewhere across Watford's already overcrowded roads. Emergency services will therefore move slower as they wade their way through even worse jams, long before they can get to the clear reserved road! Watford's roads are creaking under the strain of never ending house building. Here we have the exceedingly very rare event of adding space to the road infrastructure, yet the blinkered Council wants to make it off limits to all but a few. Stupidity is too polite a word to describe it. D_Penn
  • Score: 10

4:50pm Fri 16 May 14

Sec.andTreasurer says...

So the Liberal Democrat council are going to build a new road with taxpayers money and then prohibit the majority of taxpayers from using it! Not very Liberal and certainly not Democratic!! Wake up, Dorothy; your job is on the line next week and this no way to get your fourth term. You've already upset people by planning to concrete over the Farm Terrace allotments and now you come up with a half-baked scheme like this. Dr. Whoopee is dead right; you couldn't make it up
So the Liberal Democrat council are going to build a new road with taxpayers money and then prohibit the majority of taxpayers from using it! Not very Liberal and certainly not Democratic!! Wake up, Dorothy; your job is on the line next week and this no way to get your fourth term. You've already upset people by planning to concrete over the Farm Terrace allotments and now you come up with a half-baked scheme like this. Dr. Whoopee is dead right; you couldn't make it up Sec.andTreasurer
  • Score: 10

5:30pm Fri 16 May 14

Retlas says...

This is a question not a statement.

Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced?
It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land.
I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft.
Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road?

I don't understand the thinking!
This is a question not a statement. Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced? It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land. I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft. Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road? I don't understand the thinking! Retlas
  • Score: 2

5:48pm Fri 16 May 14

TRT says...

Retlas wrote:
This is a question not a statement.

Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced?
It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land.
I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft.
Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road?

I don't understand the thinking!
If it becomes a "short cut", then it becomes a heavily used route with incumbent problems to do with pedestrians, cyclists etc battling cars in front of a hospital. It was in the original plan - blue light routes and bus routes etc. Nothing like that level of detail available on the new plan yet. The new plan stinks not only because it does, but because there's no detail at all at this stage. The old plan, they'd worked out ambulance bays and zebra crossings and cycle racks etc.
Not a dicky bird this time.
Rotten rotten rotten. They want everyone to be all happy and jolly about it and give them a free hand to do "something good" with all hand waving "oh yes of course it's a hospital, we'll build that with the profits" And when that happens, alarm bells, alarm bells... as Tim Vine would sing.

Andrew1963 is rarely wrong and is possibly the most insightful commentator with regards planning and construction on the WO. His posts on this recently I believe - there won't be a new hospital, any profits on the hospital side will vanish into the NHS black hole, the council will spend their wad on stupid vanity projects and the housing developers will swan off to the Costa Del Sol and retire on a handsome bonus.
[quote][p][bold]Retlas[/bold] wrote: This is a question not a statement. Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced? It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land. I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft. Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road? I don't understand the thinking![/p][/quote]If it becomes a "short cut", then it becomes a heavily used route with incumbent problems to do with pedestrians, cyclists etc battling cars in front of a hospital. It was in the original plan - blue light routes and bus routes etc. Nothing like that level of detail available on the new plan yet. The new plan stinks not only because it does, but because there's no detail at all at this stage. The old plan, they'd worked out ambulance bays and zebra crossings and cycle racks etc. Not a dicky bird this time. Rotten rotten rotten. They want everyone to be all happy and jolly about it and give them a free hand to do "something good" with all hand waving "oh yes of course it's a hospital, we'll build that with the profits" And when that happens, alarm bells, alarm bells... as Tim Vine would sing. Andrew1963 is rarely wrong and is possibly the most insightful commentator with regards planning and construction on the WO. His posts on this recently I believe - there won't be a new hospital, any profits on the hospital side will vanish into the NHS black hole, the council will spend their wad on stupid vanity projects and the housing developers will swan off to the Costa Del Sol and retire on a handsome bonus. TRT
  • Score: 4

5:55pm Fri 16 May 14

D_Penn says...

Retlas wrote:
This is a question not a statement. Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced? It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land. I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft. Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road? I don't understand the thinking!
That's because the thinking is detached.

Listen, the Lib Dems operate on certain philosophies. You know the sort of thing...

Pedestrians are good, cycling is good, cars are nasty. Houses are good, flats, which squeeze in more homes are better, small flats for even more homes is best of all.

So when decisions have to be made, their mantra is to adhere to those principles. So anything which deters car usage is fine. Hence we have a Watford packed with new flats but insufficient parking space and Watfords roads are clogged for much of teh day, but in the minds of LibDems, that's a 'good thing' because it encourages walking, cycling and use of public transport.

Never mind that in Britain much of the time the weather is foul and public transport slow, unreliable and expensive and for many, use of a car is a necessity. Anything which makes driving more difficult and might force people to stop using their cars is okay with the LibDems.

If anyone doesn't believe me, when was the last time you saw someone from the LibDem council fighting to help Watford motorists?

So once everyone understands the driving force behind schemes such as this ridiculous road restriction, it is very easy to understand the thinking!
[quote][p][bold]Retlas[/bold] wrote: This is a question not a statement. Does anyone know if it can be legally enforced? It appears not to be a toll road or a thoroughfare over private land. I reaise that restrictions can be enforced but this just seems to be plain daft. Coming from the west of the hospital will we have to do battle with the ring road? I don't understand the thinking![/p][/quote]That's because the thinking is detached. Listen, the Lib Dems operate on certain philosophies. You know the sort of thing... Pedestrians are good, cycling is good, cars are nasty. Houses are good, flats, which squeeze in more homes are better, small flats for even more homes is best of all. So when decisions have to be made, their mantra is to adhere to those principles. So anything which deters car usage is fine. Hence we have a Watford packed with new flats but insufficient parking space and Watfords roads are clogged for much of teh day, but in the minds of LibDems, that's a 'good thing' because it encourages walking, cycling and use of public transport. Never mind that in Britain much of the time the weather is foul and public transport slow, unreliable and expensive and for many, use of a car is a necessity. Anything which makes driving more difficult and might force people to stop using their cars is okay with the LibDems. If anyone doesn't believe me, when was the last time you saw someone from the LibDem council fighting to help Watford motorists? So once everyone understands the driving force behind schemes such as this ridiculous road restriction, it is very easy to understand the thinking! D_Penn
  • Score: 3

5:58pm Fri 16 May 14

pjh1004 says...

Another chance to relieve the already overcrowded roads of Watford could go to waste,what is the point of spending millions building a road where only a select few can use it. Mind you, nothing this council does suprises me now. Dorothy seems to be on her own ego power trip to make our Watford, a place where she wants everyone in Hertfordshire to come and live and work, but doesn't think for one moment about the infrastructure. As long as she can spend millions on a Cassiobury Park refurb ( What for ? ) and the town Centre carve up ( a disaaaster darling ) she'll be happy !!
Another chance to relieve the already overcrowded roads of Watford could go to waste,what is the point of spending millions building a road where only a select few can use it. Mind you, nothing this council does suprises me now. Dorothy seems to be on her own ego power trip to make our Watford, a place where she wants everyone in Hertfordshire to come and live and work, but doesn't think for one moment about the infrastructure. As long as she can spend millions on a Cassiobury Park refurb ( What for ? ) and the town Centre carve up ( a disaaaster darling ) she'll be happy !! pjh1004
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Fri 16 May 14

Retlas says...

Thank you TRT,

Will WGH ever have a southern entrance or is this just an added selling point for the homes built on Farm Terrace?
Thank you TRT, Will WGH ever have a southern entrance or is this just an added selling point for the homes built on Farm Terrace? Retlas
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Fri 16 May 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

You all seem to be screaming out for a bit of thought and a bit of common sense. Well you won't get it from the LibDems, they're on a power trip.

What can I say? Vote UKIP!
You all seem to be screaming out for a bit of thought and a bit of common sense. Well you won't get it from the LibDems, they're on a power trip. What can I say? Vote UKIP! Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

7:12pm Fri 16 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?
So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP? UKIP-pal
  • Score: 1

7:32pm Fri 16 May 14

ejb... says...

At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed people won't be able to use it as a cut through. The current plans are to enforce it with an ANPR system.
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed people won't be able to use it as a cut through. The current plans are to enforce it with an ANPR system. ejb...
  • Score: 4

7:34pm Fri 16 May 14

ejb... says...

UKIP-pal wrote:
So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.
[quote][p][bold]UKIP-pal[/bold] wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?[/p][/quote]At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system. ejb...
  • Score: 2

8:00pm Fri 16 May 14

TRT says...

Retlas wrote:
Thank you TRT,

Will WGH ever have a southern entrance or is this just an added selling point for the homes built on Farm Terrace?
I haven't seen plans that detailed but it seems like ambulance can use south or north approach. Bus will be on north and cars will use Cardiff road.
[quote][p][bold]Retlas[/bold] wrote: Thank you TRT, Will WGH ever have a southern entrance or is this just an added selling point for the homes built on Farm Terrace?[/p][/quote]I haven't seen plans that detailed but it seems like ambulance can use south or north approach. Bus will be on north and cars will use Cardiff road. TRT
  • Score: 4

9:29pm Fri 16 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

ejb... wrote:
UKIP-pal wrote:
So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.
I seriously would not want to live there if people visiting me could ber picked up by this scheme, workmen penalised for giving a qoute and delivery drivers fined.

No doubt it was in the detail but people saw a new road and thought thats good, now they won't be able to use it and the existing communities will continue to suffer trafic congestion.

Far better to share the congestion surly
[quote][p][bold]ejb...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIP-pal[/bold] wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?[/p][/quote]At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.[/p][/quote]I seriously would not want to live there if people visiting me could ber picked up by this scheme, workmen penalised for giving a qoute and delivery drivers fined. No doubt it was in the detail but people saw a new road and thought thats good, now they won't be able to use it and the existing communities will continue to suffer trafic congestion. Far better to share the congestion surly UKIP-pal
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Fri 16 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

ejb... wrote:
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed people won't be able to use it as a cut through. The current plans are to enforce it with an ANPR system.
a quick thought they could have a dedicated emergancy vehicle lane
[quote][p][bold]ejb...[/bold] wrote: At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed people won't be able to use it as a cut through. The current plans are to enforce it with an ANPR system.[/p][/quote]a quick thought they could have a dedicated emergancy vehicle lane UKIP-pal
  • Score: 2

9:43pm Fri 16 May 14

Maceo & Fred says...

And remember residents of Watford. These decisions and more are being taken outside of theCouncil in the joint company set up between Kier and Watford Borough Council. Council employees are being very careful not to hold notes of any meetings as they will be subject to the Freedom of Information act. Only when it is necessary or under pressure to release this information does it actually happen like the recent £500,000 spent on consultant fees for the Housing Campus scheme. Yours and my Council are making and taking decisions without proper scrutiny. Please wake up Watford!
And remember residents of Watford. These decisions and more are being taken outside of theCouncil in the joint company set up between Kier and Watford Borough Council. Council employees are being very careful not to hold notes of any meetings as they will be subject to the Freedom of Information act. Only when it is necessary or under pressure to release this information does it actually happen like the recent £500,000 spent on consultant fees for the Housing Campus scheme. Yours and my Council are making and taking decisions without proper scrutiny. Please wake up Watford! Maceo & Fred
  • Score: 6

9:47pm Fri 16 May 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Maceo & Fred wrote:
And remember residents of Watford. These decisions and more are being taken outside of theCouncil in the joint company set up between Kier and Watford Borough Council. Council employees are being very careful not to hold notes of any meetings as they will be subject to the Freedom of Information act. Only when it is necessary or under pressure to release this information does it actually happen like the recent £500,000 spent on consultant fees for the Housing Campus scheme. Yours and my Council are making and taking decisions without proper scrutiny. Please wake up Watford!
Subject to legal restrictions, my intention is to publish everything if elected.
[quote][p][bold]Maceo & Fred[/bold] wrote: And remember residents of Watford. These decisions and more are being taken outside of theCouncil in the joint company set up between Kier and Watford Borough Council. Council employees are being very careful not to hold notes of any meetings as they will be subject to the Freedom of Information act. Only when it is necessary or under pressure to release this information does it actually happen like the recent £500,000 spent on consultant fees for the Housing Campus scheme. Yours and my Council are making and taking decisions without proper scrutiny. Please wake up Watford![/p][/quote]Subject to legal restrictions, my intention is to publish everything if elected. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

11:02pm Fri 16 May 14

Maceo & Fred says...

Let's hope so. I do hope in the interests of Watford residents that this is debated on Monday at the Mayoral debate as at the moment this is the only form of scrutiny that can happen.
Let's hope so. I do hope in the interests of Watford residents that this is debated on Monday at the Mayoral debate as at the moment this is the only form of scrutiny that can happen. Maceo & Fred
  • Score: 3

12:22am Sat 17 May 14

D_Penn says...

ejb... wrote:
UKIP-pal wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.
It's a new main road. It is not a cut through, it is a route.

What is the point of causing congestion, delays and pollution elsewhere just because you want to stop people using a viable piece of road.

The Vicarage Road, Cassio Road, Wiggenhall Road junction is one of the most congested areas in Watford and the chance to relieve some of the pressure should be taken, not blocked.

So have the new road open to all. It shouldn't be a problem as a LibDem 'guarantee' does not mean much. The guarantee to not allow it to be used as a short cut can easily go the same way as the guarantee that was supposed to protect the allotments.
[quote][p][bold]ejb...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIP-pal[/bold] wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?[/p][/quote]At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.[/p][/quote]It's a new main road. It is not a cut through, it is a route. What is the point of causing congestion, delays and pollution elsewhere just because you want to stop people using a viable piece of road. The Vicarage Road, Cassio Road, Wiggenhall Road junction is one of the most congested areas in Watford and the chance to relieve some of the pressure should be taken, not blocked. So have the new road open to all. It shouldn't be a problem as a LibDem 'guarantee' does not mean much. The guarantee to not allow it to be used as a short cut can easily go the same way as the guarantee that was supposed to protect the allotments. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

6:23am Sat 17 May 14

Hampermill-Mike says...

I wonder how many people realise that under the current plan there will be no access to this road at the point where it crosses Deacons Hill ?.

So no access and controlled by ANPR cameras, just how to ad hoc vehicles, i.e. a delivery truck, get to go down this road. Great idea, have a road to help ambulances etc, but if this was a Tesco or Waitrose site then they would have to build at their cost items that benefitted the community.

No doubt it will have a spur road direct to Dotty's house.
I wonder how many people realise that under the current plan there will be no access to this road at the point where it crosses Deacons Hill ?. So no access and controlled by ANPR cameras, just how to ad hoc vehicles, i.e. a delivery truck, get to go down this road. Great idea, have a road to help ambulances etc, but if this was a Tesco or Waitrose site then they would have to build at their cost items that benefitted the community. No doubt it will have a spur road direct to Dotty's house. Hampermill-Mike
  • Score: 2

11:09am Sat 17 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Are the Lib Dems fit to plan or run Watford? cos so far I see planning and proposal carnage!
Are the Lib Dems fit to plan or run Watford? cos so far I see planning and proposal carnage! LocalBoy1
  • Score: 2

11:38am Sat 17 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

D_Penn wrote:
ejb... wrote:
UKIP-pal wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?
At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.
It's a new main road. It is not a cut through, it is a route.

What is the point of causing congestion, delays and pollution elsewhere just because you want to stop people using a viable piece of road.

The Vicarage Road, Cassio Road, Wiggenhall Road junction is one of the most congested areas in Watford and the chance to relieve some of the pressure should be taken, not blocked.

So have the new road open to all. It shouldn't be a problem as a LibDem 'guarantee' does not mean much. The guarantee to not allow it to be used as a short cut can easily go the same way as the guarantee that was supposed to protect the allotments.
its not built yet

So it would be worth considering if it were feasable to put in a one way (going to the hospital) emergancy vehicles only lane, this would garentee the factest possable journey irrespective of the traffic other lanes took.
Additionally at this time costs could be kept down.

A possable sulltion brought to you with love and peace by UKIP-pal, shining light into the darkened soul for well a couple of days now
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ejb...[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIP-pal[/bold] wrote: So they want a housing estate cut if an isolated from the rest of the world, why is this not appealing to UKIP?[/p][/quote]At the open day the health campus staff guaranteed the new road would not be able to be used as a cut through. The current plans to enforce it is with an ANPR system.[/p][/quote]It's a new main road. It is not a cut through, it is a route. What is the point of causing congestion, delays and pollution elsewhere just because you want to stop people using a viable piece of road. The Vicarage Road, Cassio Road, Wiggenhall Road junction is one of the most congested areas in Watford and the chance to relieve some of the pressure should be taken, not blocked. So have the new road open to all. It shouldn't be a problem as a LibDem 'guarantee' does not mean much. The guarantee to not allow it to be used as a short cut can easily go the same way as the guarantee that was supposed to protect the allotments.[/p][/quote]its not built yet So it would be worth considering if it were feasable to put in a one way (going to the hospital) emergancy vehicles only lane, this would garentee the factest possable journey irrespective of the traffic other lanes took. Additionally at this time costs could be kept down. A possable sulltion brought to you with love and peace by UKIP-pal, shining light into the darkened soul for well a couple of days now UKIP-pal
  • Score: -2

2:20pm Sat 17 May 14

TRT says...

Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with!
I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.
Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense. TRT
  • Score: 8

3:52pm Sat 17 May 14

rew001 says...

Why on earth is the MP supporting an idea that goes against the whole purpose of the road. I know lets build a road to speed access to the hospital, oh and lets then fill it up with other traffic so that access is then slowed down. Where was he when the planning permission was granted? Why didn't he say anything then to his chums in County Hall who have supported the plans already agreed.
Why on earth is the MP supporting an idea that goes against the whole purpose of the road. I know lets build a road to speed access to the hospital, oh and lets then fill it up with other traffic so that access is then slowed down. Where was he when the planning permission was granted? Why didn't he say anything then to his chums in County Hall who have supported the plans already agreed. rew001
  • Score: 1

4:09pm Sat 17 May 14

Annie1951 says...

I am totally against this road being used as a 'West Watford Relief Road'. It is being built in order to get emergency vehicles into the hospital quickly.

Has anybody given any thought to the residents of Willow Lane in this? Do you not think there is enough traffic, with the associated pollution, on this small road? There is a constant stream of cars up and down the road, ambulances, police cars etc and now you want to send all the traffic from Bushey and Croxley down it. Unbelievable!!
I am totally against this road being used as a 'West Watford Relief Road'. It is being built in order to get emergency vehicles into the hospital quickly. Has anybody given any thought to the residents of Willow Lane in this? Do you not think there is enough traffic, with the associated pollution, on this small road? There is a constant stream of cars up and down the road, ambulances, police cars etc and now you want to send all the traffic from Bushey and Croxley down it. Unbelievable!! Annie1951
  • Score: -1

6:13pm Sat 17 May 14

Sara says...

TRT wrote:
Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with!
I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.
I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.[/p][/quote]I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing. Sara
  • Score: 2

6:47pm Sat 17 May 14

Andy Wylie says...

Has anyone thought what the effect of converting this road into a through route would do to the rest of the West Watford road network, especially Hagden Lane down to the Ricky Road? It is bad enough already!
Seriously, the amount of traffic generated would mean that the current on street parking provisions need to be looked at, with a view to taking some away and serious consideration given to altering or expanding the junctions along Hagden Lane.
I can see why HCC have approved the road as shown. Too expensive and contentious implications elsewhere in the local network if it becomes a through route.
Has anyone thought what the effect of converting this road into a through route would do to the rest of the West Watford road network, especially Hagden Lane down to the Ricky Road? It is bad enough already! Seriously, the amount of traffic generated would mean that the current on street parking provisions need to be looked at, with a view to taking some away and serious consideration given to altering or expanding the junctions along Hagden Lane. I can see why HCC have approved the road as shown. Too expensive and contentious implications elsewhere in the local network if it becomes a through route. Andy Wylie
  • Score: 5

9:12pm Sat 17 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so.
The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Sat 17 May 14

Aryldi says...

So the Health Campus is supposed to have shops and drop in facilities that will generate money to support the hospital - yet you will only be able to use the road to access these facilities if you are pre-registered as a regular visitor?

Does anyone else see a flaw in this?
So the Health Campus is supposed to have shops and drop in facilities that will generate money to support the hospital - yet you will only be able to use the road to access these facilities if you are pre-registered as a regular visitor? Does anyone else see a flaw in this? Aryldi
  • Score: 4

11:38pm Sat 17 May 14

Andrew1963 says...

The inability to access this new road from Wiggenhall Road, plus the closure of hospital access from Vicarage road will mean all ambulances will need to travel around the ring road, water fields way and Dalton Way gyratory. If you are coming from the direction of the M1 this is probably a quicker journey. But for those travel from the cassiobury estate, west Watford, Croxley, Rickmansworth or beyond it will be a considerably longer journey. So the impact of changing the roads is not simply on general traffic but emergency traffic too. As an aside, presumably hospital traffic includes hospital employees. so you will have the bizarre scenario where some workers can use the road and others cannot.
The inability to access this new road from Wiggenhall Road, plus the closure of hospital access from Vicarage road will mean all ambulances will need to travel around the ring road, water fields way and Dalton Way gyratory. If you are coming from the direction of the M1 this is probably a quicker journey. But for those travel from the cassiobury estate, west Watford, Croxley, Rickmansworth or beyond it will be a considerably longer journey. So the impact of changing the roads is not simply on general traffic but emergency traffic too. As an aside, presumably hospital traffic includes hospital employees. so you will have the bizarre scenario where some workers can use the road and others cannot. Andrew1963
  • Score: 5

11:49pm Sat 17 May 14

Annie1951 says...

Aryldi wrote:
So the Health Campus is supposed to have shops and drop in facilities that will generate money to support the hospital - yet you will only be able to use the road to access these facilities if you are pre-registered as a regular visitor?

Does anyone else see a flaw in this?
No - everyone will have access to the hospital car parks and therefore access to any shops, either from Vicarage Road or from the new road.
[quote][p][bold]Aryldi[/bold] wrote: So the Health Campus is supposed to have shops and drop in facilities that will generate money to support the hospital - yet you will only be able to use the road to access these facilities if you are pre-registered as a regular visitor? Does anyone else see a flaw in this?[/p][/quote]No - everyone will have access to the hospital car parks and therefore access to any shops, either from Vicarage Road or from the new road. Annie1951
  • Score: 1

12:32am Sun 18 May 14

Annie1951 says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
The inability to access this new road from Wiggenhall Road, plus the closure of hospital access from Vicarage road will mean all ambulances will need to travel around the ring road, water fields way and Dalton Way gyratory. If you are coming from the direction of the M1 this is probably a quicker journey. But for those travel from the cassiobury estate, west Watford, Croxley, Rickmansworth or beyond it will be a considerably longer journey. So the impact of changing the roads is not simply on general traffic but emergency traffic too. As an aside, presumably hospital traffic includes hospital employees. so you will have the bizarre scenario where some workers can use the road and others cannot.
Everyone will be able to access the hospital from the new road but only as far as the hospital car parks. As I see it from the plans, there is a section of road between where the new route into the hospital ends and the existing road out of the hospital car park starts (roughly) which can only be used by emergency vehicles. This is where the NPR system will operate and it is to prevent rat-running through the site.

I think that ambulances will still be accessing the hospital via Willow Lane from Vicarage Road end as they do now, as well as from the new road.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: The inability to access this new road from Wiggenhall Road, plus the closure of hospital access from Vicarage road will mean all ambulances will need to travel around the ring road, water fields way and Dalton Way gyratory. If you are coming from the direction of the M1 this is probably a quicker journey. But for those travel from the cassiobury estate, west Watford, Croxley, Rickmansworth or beyond it will be a considerably longer journey. So the impact of changing the roads is not simply on general traffic but emergency traffic too. As an aside, presumably hospital traffic includes hospital employees. so you will have the bizarre scenario where some workers can use the road and others cannot.[/p][/quote]Everyone will be able to access the hospital from the new road but only as far as the hospital car parks. As I see it from the plans, there is a section of road between where the new route into the hospital ends and the existing road out of the hospital car park starts (roughly) which can only be used by emergency vehicles. This is where the NPR system will operate and it is to prevent rat-running through the site. I think that ambulances will still be accessing the hospital via Willow Lane from Vicarage Road end as they do now, as well as from the new road. Annie1951
  • Score: 2

8:32am Sun 18 May 14

D_Penn says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so.
You miss the point.

If you read what I said above you will understand that what I was getting at is that there is no advantage to having a very short stretch of clear road for emergency vehicles if the rest of Watford is a traffic clogged nightmare that they have to fight through.

The LibDems have insisted on following a relentless policy of build, build, build across Watford without any intention of increasing the road infrastructure to support the massive surge in traffic and parking problems generated by their blinkered aims. As I have said, philosophically, they do not care if car drivers spend half their day sitting in their vehicles going nowhere and belching out pollution. As long as they can pick up the New Homes Bonus, year after year, from the government to make it look like they are running the local economy well, they are happy.

Now you say that using this road would recuce its effectiveness and cause horrendous congestion in West Watford. Well, I've news for you. West Watford is already horrendously congested chum and the only way it's going to any better is by using new roads when we get them. That's not double standards, it's common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. If you read what I said above you will understand that what I was getting at is that there is no advantage to having a very short stretch of clear road for emergency vehicles if the rest of Watford is a traffic clogged nightmare that they have to fight through. The LibDems have insisted on following a relentless policy of build, build, build across Watford without any intention of increasing the road infrastructure to support the massive surge in traffic and parking problems generated by their blinkered aims. As I have said, philosophically, they do not care if car drivers spend half their day sitting in their vehicles going nowhere and belching out pollution. As long as they can pick up the New Homes Bonus, year after year, from the government to make it look like they are running the local economy well, they are happy. Now you say that using this road would recuce its effectiveness and cause horrendous congestion in West Watford. Well, I've news for you. West Watford is already horrendously congested chum and the only way it's going to any better is by using new roads when we get them. That's not double standards, it's common sense. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

8:38am Sun 18 May 14

Andrew1963 says...

I agree rat running through the hospital estate should not be allowed, but access from Wiggenhall road toward Dalton Way should be. If Rickmansworth Road and Hagden Lane are already congested, the urban regeneration of the Cardiff Road industrial estate will create more traffic wishing to access the new businesses. If the only access is via the new link road that will generate more traffic coming through West Watford. Ultimately there needs to be a road route from the M1 to this development. That principle is accepted by the politicians and planners. They are less keen on linking this route to the Croxley business park. But that needs to happen, to distribute traffic. Aware from the edwardian streets of West Watford.
I agree rat running through the hospital estate should not be allowed, but access from Wiggenhall road toward Dalton Way should be. If Rickmansworth Road and Hagden Lane are already congested, the urban regeneration of the Cardiff Road industrial estate will create more traffic wishing to access the new businesses. If the only access is via the new link road that will generate more traffic coming through West Watford. Ultimately there needs to be a road route from the M1 to this development. That principle is accepted by the politicians and planners. They are less keen on linking this route to the Croxley business park. But that needs to happen, to distribute traffic. Aware from the edwardian streets of West Watford. Andrew1963
  • Score: 3

8:45am Sun 18 May 14

D_Penn says...

Andy Wylie wrote:
Has anyone thought what the effect of converting this road into a through route would do to the rest of the West Watford road network, especially Hagden Lane down to the Ricky Road? It is bad enough already!
Seriously, the amount of traffic generated would mean that the current on street parking provisions need to be looked at, with a view to taking some away and serious consideration given to altering or expanding the junctions along Hagden Lane.
I can see why HCC have approved the road as shown. Too expensive and contentious implications elsewhere in the local network if it becomes a through route.
The Hagden Lane / Rickmansworth Road junction was fine until the massive house building programme behind Metropolitan Approach.

That resulted in the addition of the traffic lights at the junction, Something I argued against at the time because I knew it would cause a traffic snarl up. The obvious solution that would have worked a treat and kept traffic flowing, a mini roundabout (there is plenty of space), was rejected.

That is normal for County because they use very costly consultants to design junctions. Traffic light systems are expensive solutions and therefore recommending them (usually quoting the all encompassing swindle argument, 'Health and Safety') earn consultants bucket loads of money. Mini-roundabouts are simple, cheap and earn little in consultancy fees.

So next time you are stuck behind traffic queues at one of the multitude of traffic lights across Watford and are asking yourself, 'Surely this could have been done better?', you'll know the real reason why it wasn't.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: Has anyone thought what the effect of converting this road into a through route would do to the rest of the West Watford road network, especially Hagden Lane down to the Ricky Road? It is bad enough already! Seriously, the amount of traffic generated would mean that the current on street parking provisions need to be looked at, with a view to taking some away and serious consideration given to altering or expanding the junctions along Hagden Lane. I can see why HCC have approved the road as shown. Too expensive and contentious implications elsewhere in the local network if it becomes a through route.[/p][/quote]The Hagden Lane / Rickmansworth Road junction was fine until the massive house building programme behind Metropolitan Approach. That resulted in the addition of the traffic lights at the junction, Something I argued against at the time because I knew it would cause a traffic snarl up. The obvious solution that would have worked a treat and kept traffic flowing, a mini roundabout (there is plenty of space), was rejected. That is normal for County because they use very costly consultants to design junctions. Traffic light systems are expensive solutions and therefore recommending them (usually quoting the all encompassing swindle argument, 'Health and Safety') earn consultants bucket loads of money. Mini-roundabouts are simple, cheap and earn little in consultancy fees. So next time you are stuck behind traffic queues at one of the multitude of traffic lights across Watford and are asking yourself, 'Surely this could have been done better?', you'll know the real reason why it wasn't. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

8:46am Sun 18 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

9:03am Sun 18 May 14

TRT says...

Sara wrote:
TRT wrote:
Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with!
I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.
I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.
And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.[/p][/quote]I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.[/p][/quote]And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function. TRT
  • Score: -1

9:13am Sun 18 May 14

D_Penn says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
They'll be the same highway engineers who redesigned the lights system at the Hempstead Road/Langley Road junction and made the traffic queues considerably worse.

The same people who, when the lights outside Watford Junction were suspended and traffic flowed better than ever, fought to have them put back.

The same guys who love to put traffic lights on roundabouts, like at the permanetly congested Dome Roundabout and it's confusing lane ststem, getting the worst of all worlds.

Or how about the traffic lights installed at the Vicarage Road / Wiggenhall Road junction which at its introduction overnight turned a free flowing traffic system into a congestion blackspot.

These are the highways experts who have ignored traffic accidents at the Hempstead Road/Courtlands Drive junction for ages and only now that a public fuss is being made are beginning to take it seriously.

People across Watford are fed up to the back teeth with the awful, ineffective and expensive traffic solutions that are imposed on us. Most think that the Highways Department is not fit for purpose. You may think otherwise, but the weight of evidence is heavily against you.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]They'll be the same highway engineers who redesigned the lights system at the Hempstead Road/Langley Road junction and made the traffic queues considerably worse. The same people who, when the lights outside Watford Junction were suspended and traffic flowed better than ever, fought to have them put back. The same guys who love to put traffic lights on roundabouts, like at the permanetly congested Dome Roundabout and it's confusing lane ststem, getting the worst of all worlds. Or how about the traffic lights installed at the Vicarage Road / Wiggenhall Road junction which at its introduction overnight turned a free flowing traffic system into a congestion blackspot. These are the highways experts who have ignored traffic accidents at the Hempstead Road/Courtlands Drive junction for ages and only now that a public fuss is being made are beginning to take it seriously. People across Watford are fed up to the back teeth with the awful, ineffective and expensive traffic solutions that are imposed on us. Most think that the Highways Department is not fit for purpose. You may think otherwise, but the weight of evidence is heavily against you. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

9:32am Sun 18 May 14

TRT says...

@D_Penn. No, it won't be. I know them, and they've moved on to other jobs, frustrated at the half-arsed way that their designs were implemented e.g. the lack of transponders on buses that would have triggered the lights at the station and along St Albans Road only when needed.
@D_Penn. No, it won't be. I know them, and they've moved on to other jobs, frustrated at the half-arsed way that their designs were implemented e.g. the lack of transponders on buses that would have triggered the lights at the station and along St Albans Road only when needed. TRT
  • Score: 3

10:13am Sun 18 May 14

Annie1951 says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment. Annie1951
  • Score: 1

10:19am Sun 18 May 14

Sara says...

TRT wrote:
Sara wrote:
TRT wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.
I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.
And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function.
Because you would be adding a lot more than 750 homes to what you cal the already dangerously over-congested 0part of the Borough.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.[/p][/quote]I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.[/p][/quote]And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function.[/p][/quote]Because you would be adding a lot more than 750 homes to what you cal the already dangerously over-congested 0part of the Borough. Sara
  • Score: 3

10:31am Sun 18 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so.
You miss the point.

If you read what I said above you will understand that what I was getting at is that there is no advantage to having a very short stretch of clear road for emergency vehicles if the rest of Watford is a traffic clogged nightmare that they have to fight through.

The LibDems have insisted on following a relentless policy of build, build, build across Watford without any intention of increasing the road infrastructure to support the massive surge in traffic and parking problems generated by their blinkered aims. As I have said, philosophically, they do not care if car drivers spend half their day sitting in their vehicles going nowhere and belching out pollution. As long as they can pick up the New Homes Bonus, year after year, from the government to make it look like they are running the local economy well, they are happy.

Now you say that using this road would recuce its effectiveness and cause horrendous congestion in West Watford. Well, I've news for you. West Watford is already horrendously congested chum and the only way it's going to any better is by using new roads when we get them. That's not double standards, it's common sense.
Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end?

And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The UKIPpers and other assorted crazies on these pages have been ranting on about the evils of the Health campus and its access road for months. Now the road is approved and on its way, they are ranting about wanting more traffic on it by making it a through route, which will reduce its effectiveness as an emergency vehicle route and cause horrendous congestion on West Watford. Double standards? I think so.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. If you read what I said above you will understand that what I was getting at is that there is no advantage to having a very short stretch of clear road for emergency vehicles if the rest of Watford is a traffic clogged nightmare that they have to fight through. The LibDems have insisted on following a relentless policy of build, build, build across Watford without any intention of increasing the road infrastructure to support the massive surge in traffic and parking problems generated by their blinkered aims. As I have said, philosophically, they do not care if car drivers spend half their day sitting in their vehicles going nowhere and belching out pollution. As long as they can pick up the New Homes Bonus, year after year, from the government to make it look like they are running the local economy well, they are happy. Now you say that using this road would recuce its effectiveness and cause horrendous congestion in West Watford. Well, I've news for you. West Watford is already horrendously congested chum and the only way it's going to any better is by using new roads when we get them. That's not double standards, it's common sense.[/p][/quote]Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane? Annie1951
  • Score: 0

10:54am Sun 18 May 14

TRT says...

Sara wrote:
TRT wrote:
Sara wrote:
TRT wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.
I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.
And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function.
Because you would be adding a lot more than 750 homes to what you cal the already dangerously over-congested 0part of the Borough.
So faced with the inevitability that 60 acres of brownfield land will be developed with housing in the most overpopulated part of Hertfordshire, what are you saying? That 750 high density homes and an expanded but unrebuilt hospital is a lesser evil than an unknown quantity of unknown density housing and a brand new hospital built somewhere which has the transport capacity to cope? I'm not suggesting the hospital should be elsewhere for the good of West Watford but for the good of the whole of south west herts hospital users.
I'd rather see a moderate development on the current hospital site... 600 medium density homes, a school for local people, a good range of small to medium sized employment opportunities without major road use, tech firms, customer service centres etc.
I think that a new relief road linking Dalton Way to Two Bridges or the Hagden Lane region would cause paradoxical congestion issues elsewhere in Watford. And I'm usually in favour of removing restrictions on the free flow of traffic in "capillary bed" road layouts. I believe that no entries which aren't due to one way flows add to congestion elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Of course a far better solution is to build the hospital somewhere with the capacity overhead available to take the extra traffic, and not build 750 homes in an already dangerously over-congested part of the borough to begin with! I mean, if the rope is straining you take some weight off, not add more. Common sense.[/p][/quote]I am not expressing an opinion as I don't have any data, but if the hospital were to be built somewhere else, the most likely use for the current WGH site would be housing.[/p][/quote]And this differs from what will happen anyway how exactly? At least putting the hospital elsewhere would mean it could still function.[/p][/quote]Because you would be adding a lot more than 750 homes to what you cal the already dangerously over-congested 0part of the Borough.[/p][/quote]So faced with the inevitability that 60 acres of brownfield land will be developed with housing in the most overpopulated part of Hertfordshire, what are you saying? That 750 high density homes and an expanded but unrebuilt hospital is a lesser evil than an unknown quantity of unknown density housing and a brand new hospital built somewhere which has the transport capacity to cope? I'm not suggesting the hospital should be elsewhere for the good of West Watford but for the good of the whole of south west herts hospital users. I'd rather see a moderate development on the current hospital site... 600 medium density homes, a school for local people, a good range of small to medium sized employment opportunities without major road use, tech firms, customer service centres etc. I think that a new relief road linking Dalton Way to Two Bridges or the Hagden Lane region would cause paradoxical congestion issues elsewhere in Watford. And I'm usually in favour of removing restrictions on the free flow of traffic in "capillary bed" road layouts. I believe that no entries which aren't due to one way flows add to congestion elsewhere. TRT
  • Score: 1

11:02am Sun 18 May 14

D_Penn says...

Annie1951 wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.
The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction.

I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few.

If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules.

Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare.

In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford.

Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.
[quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.[/p][/quote]The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction. I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few. If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules. Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare. In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford. Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

11:26am Sun 18 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

@Wacko Jacko

"highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth!
@Wacko Jacko "highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth! LocalBoy1
  • Score: 3

11:47am Sun 18 May 14

Sara says...

'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! '

No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often.
'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! ' No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often. Sara
  • Score: 3

12:03pm Sun 18 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Sara wrote:
'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! '

No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often.
No Sara, you have missed the point as usual, Kings is usually full at the weekend as you well know, Church has queues, so it's a journey round the ring road. If nit picking at that one element of my comment gives you satisfaction, then fine. Don't expect me to answer you comments again. Pathetic!! There is nothing you can tell me about the Watford road transport structure!
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: 'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! ' No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often.[/p][/quote]No Sara, you have missed the point as usual, Kings is usually full at the weekend as you well know, Church has queues, so it's a journey round the ring road. If nit picking at that one element of my comment gives you satisfaction, then fine. Don't expect me to answer you comments again. Pathetic!! There is nothing you can tell me about the Watford road transport structure! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -3

12:23pm Sun 18 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
Annie1951 wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.
The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction.

I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few.

If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules.

Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare.

In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford.

Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.
So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier.

'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?'
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.[/p][/quote]The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction. I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few. If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules. Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare. In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford. Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.[/p][/quote]So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier. 'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?' Annie1951
  • Score: 4

5:19pm Sun 18 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

Annie1951 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Annie1951 wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.
The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction.

I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few.

If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules.

Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare.

In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford.

Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.
So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier.

'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?'
If it is not a throgh route is there a need for APNR?

It may be needed, but I am thinkng maybe not
[quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.[/p][/quote]The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction. I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few. If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules. Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare. In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford. Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.[/p][/quote]So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier. 'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?'[/p][/quote]If it is not a throgh route is there a need for APNR? It may be needed, but I am thinkng maybe not UKIP-pal
  • Score: -1

7:53pm Sun 18 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
@Wacko Jacko

"highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth!
Firstly LocalBoy1, I'm not your mate. Secondly I'd rather trust road planning to the experts than to opinionated amateurs like D Penn or yourself. Thirdly the idiot drivers who can't negotiate Woodmere Avenue without clonking their cars shouldn't be on the road, or at the very least need more practise. I've gone through those restrictions many times in different cars and never had a problem, yes you have to slow down and take care, but Doh! that's the point of having them. And finally posting my comments on this site doesn't involve opening my mouth, I use a computer.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: @Wacko Jacko "highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth![/p][/quote]Firstly LocalBoy1, I'm not your mate. Secondly I'd rather trust road planning to the experts than to opinionated amateurs like D Penn or yourself. Thirdly the idiot drivers who can't negotiate Woodmere Avenue without clonking their cars shouldn't be on the road, or at the very least need more practise. I've gone through those restrictions many times in different cars and never had a problem, yes you have to slow down and take care, but Doh! that's the point of having them. And finally posting my comments on this site doesn't involve opening my mouth, I use a computer. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -2

8:32pm Sun 18 May 14

Annie1951 says...

UKIP-pal wrote:
Annie1951 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Annie1951 wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.
The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction.

I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few.

If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules.

Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare.

In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford.

Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.
So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier.

'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?'
If it is not a throgh route is there a need for APNR?

It may be needed, but I am thinkng maybe not
If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run
[quote][p][bold]UKIP-pal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: D Penn is the one who misses the point. Building the access road will take emergency traffic and general hospital traffic plus the traffic accessing the new houses and shops out of West Watford completely, thereby reducing congestion. If through traffic on it is allowed, it will become a magnet for general traffic by-passing the town centre, adding to congestion. Ukip and their crazy supporters seem to think they know better than the highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result for the town. Ukippers clearly don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.[/p][/quote]Exactly right regarding the new road taking the majority of hospital traffic out of West Watford thereby reducing congestion. The outpour of cars from the hospital onto Vicarage Road in rush hour causes a lot of the problems at the moment.[/p][/quote]The problem is with ALL the traffic in the rush hour. Hospital traffic is only a percentage and much of it would still end up back at the Vicarage Road/Wiggemhall Road junction. I know use of this road by through traffic would make it busier and those living in the area would be unhappy, but more traffic is a sad fact of life in Watford. Whilst unrelenting building of flats keeps increasing the number of people living in Watford, we need more road space which must be shared by everyone and not have it reserved for the elite few. If you think about it, schemes like this are a real threat to future sanity when driving because you can bet your life savings that this will not be the last of these ANPR traffic management schemes. Once the precedent is established, they will start appearing around the country like wildfire as councils seek to push motorists around and make money from fining people who accidentally break the rules. Can you just imagine what it will be like driving around towns in the near future? Every loony Council will start putting restrictions about which roads you can use depending on the route you want to go. Navigation will become a nightmare. In Watford for example, you may suddenly find that wanting to go from Garston to the town centre, you are forbidden from using the St Albans Road simply because the Council have decided that the Hempstead Road is the designated access route to relieve congestion in North Watford. Mark my words, one a new technology like this now cheap Automated Number Plate Recognition technology becomes available, Councils will start to sit down and see how it can be used to control traffic. This scheme will prove to be the thin end of the wedge, I promise you.[/p][/quote]So my question to you ....... as I posted earlier. 'Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?'[/p][/quote]If it is not a throgh route is there a need for APNR? It may be needed, but I am thinkng maybe not[/p][/quote]If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run Annie1951
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Sun 18 May 14

Sara says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Sara wrote:
'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! '

No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often.
No Sara, you have missed the point as usual, Kings is usually full at the weekend as you well know, Church has queues, so it's a journey round the ring road. If nit picking at that one element of my comment gives you satisfaction, then fine. Don't expect me to answer you comments again. Pathetic!! There is nothing you can tell me about the Watford road transport structure!
I've never had any more problem getting into Kings or Queens from the link road than I have.coming from Hempstead Road into Palace. I'm not always coming from home, or going to the same shops, so I'm not always using the same route or car park.

If the Harlequin is busy, everywhere in the centre of town is busy.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: 'Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! ' No, you just go into Kings Car Park having come down Stephenson Way and you can exit via Queens Car Park to return. Easy - I do it quite often.[/p][/quote]No Sara, you have missed the point as usual, Kings is usually full at the weekend as you well know, Church has queues, so it's a journey round the ring road. If nit picking at that one element of my comment gives you satisfaction, then fine. Don't expect me to answer you comments again. Pathetic!! There is nothing you can tell me about the Watford road transport structure![/p][/quote]I've never had any more problem getting into Kings or Queens from the link road than I have.coming from Hempstead Road into Palace. I'm not always coming from home, or going to the same shops, so I'm not always using the same route or car park. If the Harlequin is busy, everywhere in the centre of town is busy. Sara
  • Score: 1

11:20pm Sun 18 May 14

D_Penn says...

@annie1951

You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run"

I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live.

It's a closed minded view.

Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution.

Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate).

As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock.

Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now.
@annie1951 You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run" I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live. It's a closed minded view. Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution. Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate). As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock. Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

11:48pm Sun 18 May 14

TRT says...

D_Penn wrote:
@annie1951

You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run"

I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live.

It's a closed minded view.

Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution.

Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate).

As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock.

Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now.
HCC know bugger all about road design as stipulated or advised by government. And I can prove it. Approach the town hall roundabout underpass from either direction. At the point the route diverges into straight on under and peel left for the roundabout, what sign do you see? Round blue with arrows down left and down right. The sign that means pass either side for same destination. I've pointed it out four times over the last 20 years, they've replaced the sign twice with the same one. A government issued traffic advisory leaflet in 2013 reinforced the correct legal use of the sign. Still not changed. The engineers at HCC do not pay attention to official government communiques about roads, signage etc. they don't listen to people either. Woodmere Ave width restriction?
Their arrogance is astounding.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @annie1951 You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run" I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live. It's a closed minded view. Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution. Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate). As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock. Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now.[/p][/quote]HCC know bugger all about road design as stipulated or advised by government. And I can prove it. Approach the town hall roundabout underpass from either direction. At the point the route diverges into straight on under and peel left for the roundabout, what sign do you see? Round blue with arrows down left and down right. The sign that means pass either side for same destination. I've pointed it out four times over the last 20 years, they've replaced the sign twice with the same one. A government issued traffic advisory leaflet in 2013 reinforced the correct legal use of the sign. Still not changed. The engineers at HCC do not pay attention to official government communiques about roads, signage etc. they don't listen to people either. Woodmere Ave width restriction? Their arrogance is astounding. TRT
  • Score: -3

12:08am Mon 19 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
@Wacko Jacko

"highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth!
Firstly LocalBoy1, I'm not your mate. Secondly I'd rather trust road planning to the experts than to opinionated amateurs like D Penn or yourself. Thirdly the idiot drivers who can't negotiate Woodmere Avenue without clonking their cars shouldn't be on the road, or at the very least need more practise. I've gone through those restrictions many times in different cars and never had a problem, yes you have to slow down and take care, but Doh! that's the point of having them. And finally posting my comments on this site doesn't involve opening my mouth, I use a computer.
Might I suggest something
You guys all calm down, forget that UKIP are led by a racist (it says it in the Sun) and that the Libdem's are not to be trusted, and that some people are only here for the crack. Forget that if you don't agree with UKIP there is at least one candidate that would havr you hung, forget the the Libdems have betrayed half their voters by going Tory, forget all that and have a

((((((((HUG))))))))
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: @Wacko Jacko "highways engineers who have the accurate data at their fingertips and have devised the scheme to deliver the best result" ..... Clearly you have more faith in the HCC highways engineers than any one else in Watford. Take the Woodmere Avenue width restrictors for an example, which has caused more damage to vehicles than any other HCC road structure. Or the motorist's coming in from the M1 to the Harlequin to shop and have to usually drive round the entire ring road to park! As you have been so derogatory with your comments, I shall be likewise. You must be living in cloud cuckoo land mate, just look at the road design in Watford and all the wasted £1000's in traffic light schemes that were later removed, remember Watford Junction? remember the town hall doughnuts? (roundabouts to you) You want to think before you open your mouth![/p][/quote]Firstly LocalBoy1, I'm not your mate. Secondly I'd rather trust road planning to the experts than to opinionated amateurs like D Penn or yourself. Thirdly the idiot drivers who can't negotiate Woodmere Avenue without clonking their cars shouldn't be on the road, or at the very least need more practise. I've gone through those restrictions many times in different cars and never had a problem, yes you have to slow down and take care, but Doh! that's the point of having them. And finally posting my comments on this site doesn't involve opening my mouth, I use a computer.[/p][/quote]Might I suggest something You guys all calm down, forget that UKIP are led by a racist (it says it in the Sun) and that the Libdem's are not to be trusted, and that some people are only here for the crack. Forget that if you don't agree with UKIP there is at least one candidate that would havr you hung, forget the the Libdems have betrayed half their voters by going Tory, forget all that and have a ((((((((HUG)))))))) UKIP-pal
  • Score: 2

10:09am Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
@annie1951

You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run"

I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live.

It's a closed minded view.

Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution.

Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate).

As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock.

Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now.
@ David Penn
You might not like the term rat running but it exists and describes accurately what would happen here.

I have lived in West Watford for over 35 years with the hospital and football ground as neighbours so you do not have to tell me about traffic congestion.

Perhaps you would like to answer my question I posted earlier .......

Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end?

And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @annie1951 You said... "If there is no ANPR then people will use it as a rat run" I do not like the phrase 'rat run'. It is used far too often as an emotive term to describe people using an alternative route to negotiate a journey by those who think cars should not use roads on which they live. It's a closed minded view. Locals often know many routes that are more effective than the one that the majority of traffic uses. By using these alternatives they help reduce congestion on main roads and shorten everybody's journey times. When all traffic is forced down the same roads, congestion increases massively as does pollution. Given freedom of choice, motorists evolve good solutions to find the best way to complete a journey via a well understood mathematical process based on Darwinian theory. It results in everyone completing a journey in the quickest possible time. The quicker you remove cars from the road the better it becomes for all road users (such as emergency vehicles - as relevant to this debate). As soon as the evolutionary process is restricted by closing off access routes, everyone in a town suffers because you create bottlenecks with no relief. The result is you get cars on the road for longer which feeds back into even longer journey times for others. The whole process self-catalyses and is one of the recognised causes of rush-hour gridlock. Watford has got an awful name for bad traffic from people who live in the town as well as those who have to pass (crawl) through it. It's because of poor understanding with resulting bad solutions that are implemented time and again by the highways department who know everything about the government's guidelines for junction design and road management but take little interest in actually keeping traffic flowing efficiently as that has ceased to be their primary aim for many years now.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn You might not like the term rat running but it exists and describes accurately what would happen here. I have lived in West Watford for over 35 years with the hospital and football ground as neighbours so you do not have to tell me about traffic congestion. Perhaps you would like to answer my question I posted earlier ....... Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane? Annie1951
  • Score: -1

10:28am Mon 19 May 14

garston tony says...

angryangryangry wrote:
How ridiculous! Surely if us the taxpayer is paying for it we can use it! So if someone happens to turn down the round in error they will get fined, another cash cow for the council!
I understand the sentiment but not everything that we fund as tax payers should be available for us to use, for instance i'm sure you agree it wouldnt be a great idea if we could all borrow an RAF fighter when they're not being used at the weekend!

Other than that if this road could be used for the benefit of everyone driving and living in and around Watford then I agree it should be allowed. The only proviso is if it is found it does negatively impact on ambulances getting to the hospital, but as a few people have pointed out the poor flow of traffic accross town does that already and that might get a little better if this road was open to all. Swings and roundabouts.

I can imagine the council would mess up the enforcement of this restriction anyway with people who are entitled to use it getting fined whilst others find a way around it
[quote][p][bold]angryangryangry[/bold] wrote: How ridiculous! Surely if us the taxpayer is paying for it we can use it! So if someone happens to turn down the round in error they will get fined, another cash cow for the council![/p][/quote]I understand the sentiment but not everything that we fund as tax payers should be available for us to use, for instance i'm sure you agree it wouldnt be a great idea if we could all borrow an RAF fighter when they're not being used at the weekend! Other than that if this road could be used for the benefit of everyone driving and living in and around Watford then I agree it should be allowed. The only proviso is if it is found it does negatively impact on ambulances getting to the hospital, but as a few people have pointed out the poor flow of traffic accross town does that already and that might get a little better if this road was open to all. Swings and roundabouts. I can imagine the council would mess up the enforcement of this restriction anyway with people who are entitled to use it getting fined whilst others find a way around it garston tony
  • Score: 3

10:48am Mon 19 May 14

TRT says...

The council have a great history for these kind of smart schemes. Remember the rising bollards outside Yate's that were supposed to detect authorised vehicles? Or the intelligent green route along St. Albans Road that would allow buses only to jump the queues at the lights? What about SCOOT, that was supposed to retime all the lights on the ring road and the feeder roads to alleviate congestion? Actually, that last one might be in operation still, not that you'd believe it.

There's only two ANPR systems in the area that I know of that work. One of them is the car park at Tesco that always issues tickets to members of Tesco's own staff, and the one on the A4147 in Maylands, Hemel which is an advertisement for a company that makes ANPR systems.
The council have a great history for these kind of smart schemes. Remember the rising bollards outside Yate's that were supposed to detect authorised vehicles? Or the intelligent green route along St. Albans Road that would allow buses only to jump the queues at the lights? What about SCOOT, that was supposed to retime all the lights on the ring road and the feeder roads to alleviate congestion? Actually, that last one might be in operation still, not that you'd believe it. There's only two ANPR systems in the area that I know of that work. One of them is the car park at Tesco that always issues tickets to members of Tesco's own staff, and the one on the A4147 in Maylands, Hemel which is an advertisement for a company that makes ANPR systems. TRT
  • Score: 1

10:55am Mon 19 May 14

jag000 says...

What is it about Hertfordshire and coming up with stupid traffic schemes. Building a road and not allowing anyone to use it I think tops the lot though.
What is it about Hertfordshire and coming up with stupid traffic schemes. Building a road and not allowing anyone to use it I think tops the lot though. jag000
  • Score: 0

11:05am Mon 19 May 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

It is one of the more dotty and stupid ideas I have seen from the council.

I cannot see the people of Watford accepting such a system, however the LibDems have a habit of not listening to the people of Watford or doing what the people want.

That's why we have UKIP, a common-sense alternative.

Please vote UKIP on Thursday and these sort of stupid schemes will be a thing of the past.
It is one of the more dotty and stupid ideas I have seen from the council. I cannot see the people of Watford accepting such a system, however the LibDems have a habit of not listening to the people of Watford or doing what the people want. That's why we have UKIP, a common-sense alternative. Please vote UKIP on Thursday and these sort of stupid schemes will be a thing of the past. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

11:32am Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It is one of the more dotty and stupid ideas I have seen from the council.

I cannot see the people of Watford accepting such a system, however the LibDems have a habit of not listening to the people of Watford or doing what the people want.

That's why we have UKIP, a common-sense alternative.

Please vote UKIP on Thursday and these sort of stupid schemes will be a thing of the past.
@ Phil Cox, @ David Penn
What is your common sense answer to my question then:

Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end?

And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It is one of the more dotty and stupid ideas I have seen from the council. I cannot see the people of Watford accepting such a system, however the LibDems have a habit of not listening to the people of Watford or doing what the people want. That's why we have UKIP, a common-sense alternative. Please vote UKIP on Thursday and these sort of stupid schemes will be a thing of the past.[/p][/quote]@ Phil Cox, @ David Penn What is your common sense answer to my question then: Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane? Annie1951
  • Score: -1

11:44am Mon 19 May 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Every resident of Watford and every visitor to Watford can travel, for free, on every council-built and council-owned road in Watford.

That is right and it is proper. It is how things should be.

If the road is built, and is available to motorists, then it must be available to all motorists.

If it causes traffic problems, and it probably will, then building a huge housing estate in West Watford and pretending it has something to do with health may not be the best idea ever to come out of the council.

Maybe fewer houses and a new hospital would be better for this overcrowded part of Hertfordshire. Many people would agree with that position.
Every resident of Watford and every visitor to Watford can travel, for free, on every council-built and council-owned road in Watford. That is right and it is proper. It is how things should be. If the road is built, and is available to motorists, then it must be available to all motorists. If it causes traffic problems, and it probably will, then building a huge housing estate in West Watford and pretending it has something to do with health may not be the best idea ever to come out of the council. Maybe fewer houses and a new hospital would be better for this overcrowded part of Hertfordshire. Many people would agree with that position. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

11:48am Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Every resident of Watford and every visitor to Watford can travel, for free, on every council-built and council-owned road in Watford.

That is right and it is proper. It is how things should be.

If the road is built, and is available to motorists, then it must be available to all motorists.

If it causes traffic problems, and it probably will, then building a huge housing estate in West Watford and pretending it has something to do with health may not be the best idea ever to come out of the council.

Maybe fewer houses and a new hospital would be better for this overcrowded part of Hertfordshire. Many people would agree with that position.
@ Phil Cox (typical politician evading answering my question)

I ask you again:

What is your common sense answer to my question then:

Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end?

And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Every resident of Watford and every visitor to Watford can travel, for free, on every council-built and council-owned road in Watford. That is right and it is proper. It is how things should be. If the road is built, and is available to motorists, then it must be available to all motorists. If it causes traffic problems, and it probably will, then building a huge housing estate in West Watford and pretending it has something to do with health may not be the best idea ever to come out of the council. Maybe fewer houses and a new hospital would be better for this overcrowded part of Hertfordshire. Many people would agree with that position.[/p][/quote]@ Phil Cox (typical politician evading answering my question) I ask you again: What is your common sense answer to my question then: Supposing the new road is a through route then, just where do you propose all this traffic accesses the new road from Vicarage Road/Hagden Road end? And how will the traffic that comes up from the new road access Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane? Annie1951
  • Score: -3

12:09pm Mon 19 May 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

The whole scheme is flawed so I am talking from a position of principle about roads.

Roads are for all or none. It's a principle. It's one I believe in.

The scheme needs redesigning to include a new hospital. Then we can look at the housing and infrastructure requirements of the new scheme, a true Health Campus and not one in name only.

That is the best way forward and a good reason to push out those who would overdevelop our town and vote in those who would take a common sense approach.
The whole scheme is flawed so I am talking from a position of principle about roads. Roads are for all or none. It's a principle. It's one I believe in. The scheme needs redesigning to include a new hospital. Then we can look at the housing and infrastructure requirements of the new scheme, a true Health Campus and not one in name only. That is the best way forward and a good reason to push out those who would overdevelop our town and vote in those who would take a common sense approach. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Mon 19 May 14

TRT says...

The obvious solution would be that as the east side of Willow Lane is hospital land, that it is widened in that direction, that one or two houses on the east corner of Vicarage Road and Willow Lane get CP'd and demolished, and the junction improved. Does that answer your question?

Other alternatives would be to tarmac over the Ebury Way as far as Greenhill Crescent and hook into the absurdly wide Ascot Road there, or tarmac the whole of the Ebury Way as far as the Batchworth roundabout.

But of course, it's all money. I mean, if there was enough money, it would be far better to continue Waterfields Way in a straight line, cutting Century Retail Park in two and going underneath the railway line to get to the Wiggenhall Road entrance of the site. In fact, if there was an unlimited supply of money, there would be no question that we'd get a new hospital... as it is, it does seem to be coming down to money, and as Carney has recently pointed out, selling houses is how people are making tons of the stuff now. I think he also might have mentioned that we need to build lots more of them and that selling them for as much as you can squeeze out of the economy is a very bad thing.
The obvious solution would be that as the east side of Willow Lane is hospital land, that it is widened in that direction, that one or two houses on the east corner of Vicarage Road and Willow Lane get CP'd and demolished, and the junction improved. Does that answer your question? Other alternatives would be to tarmac over the Ebury Way as far as Greenhill Crescent and hook into the absurdly wide Ascot Road there, or tarmac the whole of the Ebury Way as far as the Batchworth roundabout. But of course, it's all money. I mean, if there was enough money, it would be far better to continue Waterfields Way in a straight line, cutting Century Retail Park in two and going underneath the railway line to get to the Wiggenhall Road entrance of the site. In fact, if there was an unlimited supply of money, there would be no question that we'd get a new hospital... as it is, it does seem to be coming down to money, and as Carney has recently pointed out, selling houses is how people are making tons of the stuff now. I think he also might have mentioned that we need to build lots more of them and that selling them for as much as you can squeeze out of the economy is a very bad thing. TRT
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

TRT wrote:
The obvious solution would be that as the east side of Willow Lane is hospital land, that it is widened in that direction, that one or two houses on the east corner of Vicarage Road and Willow Lane get CP'd and demolished, and the junction improved. Does that answer your question?

Other alternatives would be to tarmac over the Ebury Way as far as Greenhill Crescent and hook into the absurdly wide Ascot Road there, or tarmac the whole of the Ebury Way as far as the Batchworth roundabout.

But of course, it's all money. I mean, if there was enough money, it would be far better to continue Waterfields Way in a straight line, cutting Century Retail Park in two and going underneath the railway line to get to the Wiggenhall Road entrance of the site. In fact, if there was an unlimited supply of money, there would be no question that we'd get a new hospital... as it is, it does seem to be coming down to money, and as Carney has recently pointed out, selling houses is how people are making tons of the stuff now. I think he also might have mentioned that we need to build lots more of them and that selling them for as much as you can squeeze out of the economy is a very bad thing.
Yes you have answered the question the UKIP guys were ignoring.

Just knock down a few houses because the junction at Willow Lane/ Vicarage Road is not capable of coping with the volume of traffic.

In fact a few houses wouldn't be enough because the lane is too narrow now when two ambulances need to pass each other, so you'd have to knock down the whole of Willow Lane and use part of the gardens from Rose Gardens too.

Doesn't matter that these houses are peoples homes - just as long as it's not your home and you can use the road! I don't mean just you here TRT.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: The obvious solution would be that as the east side of Willow Lane is hospital land, that it is widened in that direction, that one or two houses on the east corner of Vicarage Road and Willow Lane get CP'd and demolished, and the junction improved. Does that answer your question? Other alternatives would be to tarmac over the Ebury Way as far as Greenhill Crescent and hook into the absurdly wide Ascot Road there, or tarmac the whole of the Ebury Way as far as the Batchworth roundabout. But of course, it's all money. I mean, if there was enough money, it would be far better to continue Waterfields Way in a straight line, cutting Century Retail Park in two and going underneath the railway line to get to the Wiggenhall Road entrance of the site. In fact, if there was an unlimited supply of money, there would be no question that we'd get a new hospital... as it is, it does seem to be coming down to money, and as Carney has recently pointed out, selling houses is how people are making tons of the stuff now. I think he also might have mentioned that we need to build lots more of them and that selling them for as much as you can squeeze out of the economy is a very bad thing.[/p][/quote]Yes you have answered the question the UKIP guys were ignoring. Just knock down a few houses because the junction at Willow Lane/ Vicarage Road is not capable of coping with the volume of traffic. In fact a few houses wouldn't be enough because the lane is too narrow now when two ambulances need to pass each other, so you'd have to knock down the whole of Willow Lane and use part of the gardens from Rose Gardens too. Doesn't matter that these houses are peoples homes - just as long as it's not your home and you can use the road! I don't mean just you here TRT. Annie1951
  • Score: -1

12:49pm Mon 19 May 14

TRT says...

Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck. TRT
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

@Annie1951

I don't understand why you are fixated on what traffic will use the road and how they will access it from Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane.

As I have said above, local motorists evolve solutions to finding the best route for their journey. Experience teaches them what is the most effective route given the time of day, traffic conditions etc. That will inevitably mean that motorists will use the new road when appropriate for their journey.

I suspect you may be referring to the break in the road on the map which suggests there may be no easy route through (blockage by design), although if it were not possible why would ANPR be needed?

I have spent some time looking for clarification but there seems to be an obsession with informing everyone about how this scheme will be great for pedestrians, cyclists and those on public transport but precious little to benefit motorists.

For example, take a look here...

http://watfordhealth
campus.info/the-proj
ect/masterplan/trans
port-improvements

You will see that any reference to the need of motorists is virtually ignored.

This is in line with the point I made earlier that modern political correctness dictates that drivers are bad and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to ignore motorists needs. Political aims these days are to inconvenience motorists as much as possible and fleece them of money wherever you can. This project is just another example that highlights that heavily biased mantra so beloved of present day politicians.

That would be fine if alternatives were so appealing and effective. However, the obvious fact that in Britain's awful climate, with poor public services, fast-paced life and an ageing population, cars are virtually a necessity of modern life for the majority. That's why nearly every family that can afford one owns a car. To keep treating motorists so shabbily is one of the worst aspects of the lack of common sense in government today.
@Annie1951 I don't understand why you are fixated on what traffic will use the road and how they will access it from Vicarage Road/Hagden Lane. As I have said above, local motorists evolve solutions to finding the best route for their journey. Experience teaches them what is the most effective route given the time of day, traffic conditions etc. That will inevitably mean that motorists will use the new road when appropriate for their journey. I suspect you may be referring to the break in the road on the map which suggests there may be no easy route through (blockage by design), although if it were not possible why would ANPR be needed? I have spent some time looking for clarification but there seems to be an obsession with informing everyone about how this scheme will be great for pedestrians, cyclists and those on public transport but precious little to benefit motorists. For example, take a look here... http://watfordhealth campus.info/the-proj ect/masterplan/trans port-improvements You will see that any reference to the need of motorists is virtually ignored. This is in line with the point I made earlier that modern political correctness dictates that drivers are bad and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to ignore motorists needs. Political aims these days are to inconvenience motorists as much as possible and fleece them of money wherever you can. This project is just another example that highlights that heavily biased mantra so beloved of present day politicians. That would be fine if alternatives were so appealing and effective. However, the obvious fact that in Britain's awful climate, with poor public services, fast-paced life and an ageing population, cars are virtually a necessity of modern life for the majority. That's why nearly every family that can afford one owns a car. To keep treating motorists so shabbily is one of the worst aspects of the lack of common sense in government today. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

1:01pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
It would still mean knocking down houses on the corner of Willow Lane/Vicarage Road.

In Willow Lane you have to park on the road (if you can get a space that is) as there is no off-road parking and the gardens in the front of the houses are too small for hard-standing.

I think some of the people posting/protesting on here have probably not even bothered to look at the plans that have been submitted. If they had they would realise that without major disruption to people's homes the road cannot possibly be a through route.

It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]It would still mean knocking down houses on the corner of Willow Lane/Vicarage Road. In Willow Lane you have to park on the road (if you can get a space that is) as there is no off-road parking and the gardens in the front of the houses are too small for hard-standing. I think some of the people posting/protesting on here have probably not even bothered to look at the plans that have been submitted. If they had they would realise that without major disruption to people's homes the road cannot possibly be a through route. It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road. Annie1951
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Mon 19 May 14

Andy Wylie says...

That is what I was getting at, several posts ago. You would have to do drastic things from Willow Lane right along Hagden Lane to the Ricky Road to cope with all the extra traffic.
That's one reason why HCC were not in favour of opening it up and a second was the cost difference of making the access road at the arches end up to full public highway standard.
As to the enforcement camera, Shire District Councils like WBC in Herts don't get involved in enforcing moving traffic offences on adopted roads so I suspect any camera monies will go to the usual suspects, rather than WBC. I can't see HCC letting that one go!
That is what I was getting at, several posts ago. You would have to do drastic things from Willow Lane right along Hagden Lane to the Ricky Road to cope with all the extra traffic. That's one reason why HCC were not in favour of opening it up and a second was the cost difference of making the access road at the arches end up to full public highway standard. As to the enforcement camera, Shire District Councils like WBC in Herts don't get involved in enforcing moving traffic offences on adopted roads so I suspect any camera monies will go to the usual suspects, rather than WBC. I can't see HCC letting that one go! Andy Wylie
  • Score: 2

1:08pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

1:14pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

@Annie1951

You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road."

With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both.

Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.
@Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

1:16pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
@ David Penn
As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising!

I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising! I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value. Annie1951
  • Score: -2

1:19pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
@Annie1951

You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road."

With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both.

Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.
@ David Penn
That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us. Annie1951
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Mon 19 May 14

TRT says...

D_Penn wrote:
TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow.

*cough* farm terrace *cough*
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.[/p][/quote]Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow. *cough* farm terrace *cough* TRT
  • Score: 3

1:57pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

TRT wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow.

*cough* farm terrace *cough*
@TRT
What an obnoxious post! Do you seriously think it's alright to knock down people's homes and chuck them in a wreck of a house two miles away!!

You cannot compare demolishing someone's home to an allotment!
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.[/p][/quote]Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow. *cough* farm terrace *cough*[/p][/quote]@TRT What an obnoxious post! Do you seriously think it's alright to knock down people's homes and chuck them in a wreck of a house two miles away!! You cannot compare demolishing someone's home to an allotment! Annie1951
  • Score: -3

2:02pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

@Annie1951

You said: "As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising! I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value."

I understand that and I was not trying to be patronising, just objective. All I was saying is that if a local community's infrastructure is going to profit by some people's houses being demolished, then it is right and proper that the residents of those houses should profit too. In such circumstances I am certain that the majority would actually see it as a welcome windfall that brought benefits to their family. They certainly would be able to afford a home upgrade if that's what they desired.

Those like yourself who want to keep your home at any price, I would genuinely feel sorry for. However, wouldn't it be far worse if you were thrown out of your home after barely being paid the market value? It would be like taking a double hit.

That is exactly the scenario facing all those who will lose their homes when HS2 goes ahead. They will have to fight for every pound of compensation against those who will be doing their utmost to keep the bill down. It is unfair and it's long overdue that the whole process of compulsory purchase was revised in favour of residents and owners.

Returning to your situation, as I'm sure you are aware, I am against the bulk building of even more houses and flats in our overcrowded town - especially West Watford. We would not need relief roads if this council realised that there is a point when the infrastructure cannot take anymore people. Sadly whilst the LibDems are in charge this town is going to carry on squeezing in ever more buildings no matter how uncomfortable it gets for us who already live here.
@Annie1951 You said: "As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising! I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value." I understand that and I was not trying to be patronising, just objective. All I was saying is that if a local community's infrastructure is going to profit by some people's houses being demolished, then it is right and proper that the residents of those houses should profit too. In such circumstances I am certain that the majority would actually see it as a welcome windfall that brought benefits to their family. They certainly would be able to afford a home upgrade if that's what they desired. Those like yourself who want to keep your home at any price, I would genuinely feel sorry for. However, wouldn't it be far worse if you were thrown out of your home after barely being paid the market value? It would be like taking a double hit. That is exactly the scenario facing all those who will lose their homes when HS2 goes ahead. They will have to fight for every pound of compensation against those who will be doing their utmost to keep the bill down. It is unfair and it's long overdue that the whole process of compulsory purchase was revised in favour of residents and owners. Returning to your situation, as I'm sure you are aware, I am against the bulk building of even more houses and flats in our overcrowded town - especially West Watford. We would not need relief roads if this council realised that there is a point when the infrastructure cannot take anymore people. Sadly whilst the LibDems are in charge this town is going to carry on squeezing in ever more buildings no matter how uncomfortable it gets for us who already live here. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Mon 19 May 14

TRT says...

Annie1951 wrote:
TRT wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow.

*cough* farm terrace *cough*
@TRT
What an obnoxious post! Do you seriously think it's alright to knock down people's homes and chuck them in a wreck of a house two miles away!!

You cannot compare demolishing someone's home to an allotment!
I just did. But oddly, I believe allotment land enjoys more legal protection than a person's home.
[quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.[/p][/quote]Or you could give them a new home two miles away. It would no doubt be in a pretty ropey state, of course, but it would be an equivalent. People do get sentimentally attached to things they've invested in, stamped their personalities on, watched grow. *cough* farm terrace *cough*[/p][/quote]@TRT What an obnoxious post! Do you seriously think it's alright to knock down people's homes and chuck them in a wreck of a house two miles away!! You cannot compare demolishing someone's home to an allotment![/p][/quote]I just did. But oddly, I believe allotment land enjoys more legal protection than a person's home. TRT
  • Score: 4

2:43pm Mon 19 May 14

UKIP-pal says...

Annie1951 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
TRT wrote:
Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised.

I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it).

I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time.

That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects.

Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less.

So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.
@ David Penn
As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising!

I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value.
D_penn is UKIP candidate for Park ward I believe and UKIP mayoral campaign manager just in case you hadn,t been told or realized ( for what it is worth)

On reflection I think a sensible ANPR scheme could be opperated to stop through traffic in rush hour periods and maybe all day saturday, surly 7.30-9.30 and 16.30 -18.30 would be sufficant, maybe extended if needed for school hours or something. (its a sort of thing idea not written in stone times)
[quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Well... I'd say the common sense approach would be to take space from the east side, not the west. I said so. The traffic would make parking on Willow Lane a bit of a non-starter, and there aren't any built-in garages, IIRC. Demolition of people's homes is a pretty mean thing to do. Although with the new tube station nearby, I'm sure someone will come along and multiply the occupancy of houses in that area to turn a fast buck.[/p][/quote]Slightly off-topic, but relevant as it has been raised. I hate demolition of people's houses because to many their house is not just a property, it is a home. However, on occasions, it is necessary. What I vehemently object to though is that all people are offered when compulsory purchase arrives is the market value (which is usually undervalued when they can get away with it). I have long thought that if the wider community is to gain by the destruction of people's homes then society should ensure that those 'moved on' should make a very sizeable profit. It would not be unreasonable to pay a minimum of one and a half times the market value and increase that up to 3 times market value for those who have been resident for a long time. That would have the effect of at least people would feel more than adequately compensated. Additionally, it would make it easier to bring in new schemes because the vast majority would feel they'd won the lottery rather than being aggrieved and fighting in the courts causing delays to important projects. Of course, the extra compensation would make some projects unviable. But if you are taking people's homes then you should expect no less. So if Willow Lane was to lose houses, paying the owners an average of say, double their value would probably see most happy to leave with their pockets bulging. That would seem to me to be reasonable.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn As a resident of Willow Lane I find your remarks patronising! I do not want to leave my home even for double the market value.[/p][/quote]D_penn is UKIP candidate for Park ward I believe and UKIP mayoral campaign manager just in case you hadn,t been told or realized ( for what it is worth) On reflection I think a sensible ANPR scheme could be opperated to stop through traffic in rush hour periods and maybe all day saturday, surly 7.30-9.30 and 16.30 -18.30 would be sufficant, maybe extended if needed for school hours or something. (its a sort of thing idea not written in stone times) UKIP-pal
  • Score: 1

2:43pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

Annie1951 wrote:
D_Penn wrote: @Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.
@ David Penn That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us.
I'm not certain how it can be used to control those in the new campus flats who can and will sensibly need to go either way to exit the complex.

However, if you wanted to get to Wiggenhall Road you will have to join the long queue of slow moving traffic, and literally go all around the houses. You will crawl along Vicarage Road, around the dreaded gyratory system and down past Cardiff Road and then have to repeat it in reverse back again when you return.

Meanwhile, anyone living a few yards from you in the flats the other side of the new roundabout will sail happily along the new road to Wiggenhall Road. At rush hour that could potentially save them nearly half an hour there and back each day!

What makes them so special that they should have elite access and not you or other Watford residents? It is a very useful relief road that is much needed and it should be used as such.
[quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us.[/p][/quote]I'm not certain how it can be used to control those in the new campus flats who can and will sensibly need to go either way to exit the complex. However, if you wanted to get to Wiggenhall Road you will have to join the long queue of slow moving traffic, and literally go all around the houses. You will crawl along Vicarage Road, around the dreaded gyratory system and down past Cardiff Road and then have to repeat it in reverse back again when you return. Meanwhile, anyone living a few yards from you in the flats the other side of the new roundabout will sail happily along the new road to Wiggenhall Road. At rush hour that could potentially save them nearly half an hour there and back each day! What makes them so special that they should have elite access and not you or other Watford residents? It is a very useful relief road that is much needed and it should be used as such. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

3:01pm Mon 19 May 14

Annie1951 says...

D_Penn wrote:
Annie1951 wrote:
D_Penn wrote: @Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.
@ David Penn That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us.
I'm not certain how it can be used to control those in the new campus flats who can and will sensibly need to go either way to exit the complex.

However, if you wanted to get to Wiggenhall Road you will have to join the long queue of slow moving traffic, and literally go all around the houses. You will crawl along Vicarage Road, around the dreaded gyratory system and down past Cardiff Road and then have to repeat it in reverse back again when you return.

Meanwhile, anyone living a few yards from you in the flats the other side of the new roundabout will sail happily along the new road to Wiggenhall Road. At rush hour that could potentially save them nearly half an hour there and back each day!

What makes them so special that they should have elite access and not you or other Watford residents? It is a very useful relief road that is much needed and it should be used as such.
@ David Penn
That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Of course anyone can buy one of the new houses and take advantage of that.

The new road will make it much easier to negotiate Vicarage Road towards Wiggenhall Road as a large part of those needing to get to the hospital will now be accessing it from the other end where the larger car parking area will be. We will also have less emergency vehicles as many of those will be accessing the hospital from the other end.

As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Annie1951[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Annie1951 You said: "It is an access road to the hospital - not a West Watford Relief Road." With proper, thoughtful design, it could be both. Something needs to be done to get traffic moving in West Watford and this is a rare opportunity to do it. Otherwise the new 750 homes will just add to the congestion across Watford, their little elite bit of road will not spare the rest of us once their cars join the congestion elsewhere.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn That little elite bit of road will be for emergency vehicles only, as far as I am aware, and the same for Willow Lane residents too. It won't be a through route for any of us.[/p][/quote]I'm not certain how it can be used to control those in the new campus flats who can and will sensibly need to go either way to exit the complex. However, if you wanted to get to Wiggenhall Road you will have to join the long queue of slow moving traffic, and literally go all around the houses. You will crawl along Vicarage Road, around the dreaded gyratory system and down past Cardiff Road and then have to repeat it in reverse back again when you return. Meanwhile, anyone living a few yards from you in the flats the other side of the new roundabout will sail happily along the new road to Wiggenhall Road. At rush hour that could potentially save them nearly half an hour there and back each day! What makes them so special that they should have elite access and not you or other Watford residents? It is a very useful relief road that is much needed and it should be used as such.[/p][/quote]@ David Penn That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Of course anyone can buy one of the new houses and take advantage of that. The new road will make it much easier to negotiate Vicarage Road towards Wiggenhall Road as a large part of those needing to get to the hospital will now be accessing it from the other end where the larger car parking area will be. We will also have less emergency vehicles as many of those will be accessing the hospital from the other end. As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area. Annie1951
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Mon 19 May 14

D_Penn says...

@Annie1951

You said: 'As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area.'

It would be nice to think that a sensible chunk of the campus land could be allocated to parking to alleviate some of the West Watford parking issues too, but it won't happen of course.

Some time ago I also tried to put forward that a new hospital (if we ever get one) should have a multi-storey car park which would be free to patients and visitors and thus reduce the stress that people feel when sick or with relatives in hospital.

My view is that it is utterly ridiculous that healthy people can park free at Tescos, Sainsbury etc. but sick people and their visitors are charged an exorbitant £2 an hour, every hour, day and night. It's inhumane.

A while back now, the chap presenting the hospital project that I raised this with shrugged his shoulders and said it wasn't in the plan because with the good public transport access people were expected to use that rather than drive.

He seemed oblivious to the fact that patients attending a hospital tend to be unwell and waiting at a bus stop for twenty minutes is unlikely to be helpful to their recovery.

He also didn't seem overly bothered when I suggested that sick people appreciate vistors and that taking a bus is slow, expensive and awful in bad weather making it a big deterrent and £2 an hour parking is also a massive deterrent meaning that visitors will probably just give up leaving those in hospital isolated.

Recently I felt particularly angry when at 4am I was anxious as I was trying to get quickly to a relative who had been taken to A&E. I found myself standing in a very empty hospital car park, in the rain, searching for change to feed the meter. I'm pretty tough but I wondered how many people in a similar situation to me must have been very distressed. At least I could afford the fee, but many others on a tight budget could find that in the four hours it takes to get to the front of the queue of a busy A&E, that £8 for the parking is an unacceptable and unmanageable burden.

It was plain to me standing in the rain that there is no compassion left any more when there is money to be made at the expense of motorists. All motorists are punished day after day for the sin of not walking, cycling or taking the bus even when common sense tells you that driving is the only sensible option.

So whatever others may think, I will continue to fight to bring some balance back into the transport argument and stop those who have declared a nonsensical war on the motorist from taking common sense away from decision making.
@Annie1951 You said: 'As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area.' It would be nice to think that a sensible chunk of the campus land could be allocated to parking to alleviate some of the West Watford parking issues too, but it won't happen of course. Some time ago I also tried to put forward that a new hospital (if we ever get one) should have a multi-storey car park which would be free to patients and visitors and thus reduce the stress that people feel when sick or with relatives in hospital. My view is that it is utterly ridiculous that healthy people can park free at Tescos, Sainsbury etc. but sick people and their visitors are charged an exorbitant £2 an hour, every hour, day and night. It's inhumane. A while back now, the chap presenting the hospital project that I raised this with shrugged his shoulders and said it wasn't in the plan because with the good public transport access people were expected to use that rather than drive. He seemed oblivious to the fact that patients attending a hospital tend to be unwell and waiting at a bus stop for twenty minutes is unlikely to be helpful to their recovery. He also didn't seem overly bothered when I suggested that sick people appreciate vistors and that taking a bus is slow, expensive and awful in bad weather making it a big deterrent and £2 an hour parking is also a massive deterrent meaning that visitors will probably just give up leaving those in hospital isolated. Recently I felt particularly angry when at 4am I was anxious as I was trying to get quickly to a relative who had been taken to A&E. I found myself standing in a very empty hospital car park, in the rain, searching for change to feed the meter. I'm pretty tough but I wondered how many people in a similar situation to me must have been very distressed. At least I could afford the fee, but many others on a tight budget could find that in the four hours it takes to get to the front of the queue of a busy A&E, that £8 for the parking is an unacceptable and unmanageable burden. It was plain to me standing in the rain that there is no compassion left any more when there is money to be made at the expense of motorists. All motorists are punished day after day for the sin of not walking, cycling or taking the bus even when common sense tells you that driving is the only sensible option. So whatever others may think, I will continue to fight to bring some balance back into the transport argument and stop those who have declared a nonsensical war on the motorist from taking common sense away from decision making. D_Penn
  • Score: 4

4:58pm Mon 19 May 14

G_Whiz says...

TRT wrote:
Frankly, the road should not be built at all. It's going across a flood plain, that's also one of the best sports fields in the borough, it's going to destroy a river margin which scores very highly on the index for amphibian habitats, it's not going to do a damned thing for alleviating even the congestion caused by the hospital, as Waterfields Way is chock-a-block most of the day anyway as is Bushey Arches.

Bushey Arches and Waterfields way could benefit from a few tweaks of the road anyway by bridging the Colne again slightly west of the present bridge, shallowing the bend onto Dalton way and letting the old bridge become two southbound lanes, digging in the bus stop by the Mercedes Garage, so that it has a proper bay, and enforcing the no right turn into Wickes, which has currently become a very ignored thing.
Since when have the liberals and Labour worried about flood plains - it's all about crammimg everyone in and over-developement with them!

It's what the people of watford have always voted for, Now everyone is whining - wish they would make their minds up!
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Frankly, the road should not be built at all. It's going across a flood plain, that's also one of the best sports fields in the borough, it's going to destroy a river margin which scores very highly on the index for amphibian habitats, it's not going to do a damned thing for alleviating even the congestion caused by the hospital, as Waterfields Way is chock-a-block most of the day anyway as is Bushey Arches. Bushey Arches and Waterfields way could benefit from a few tweaks of the road anyway by bridging the Colne again slightly west of the present bridge, shallowing the bend onto Dalton way and letting the old bridge become two southbound lanes, digging in the bus stop by the Mercedes Garage, so that it has a proper bay, and enforcing the no right turn into Wickes, which has currently become a very ignored thing.[/p][/quote]Since when have the liberals and Labour worried about flood plains - it's all about crammimg everyone in and over-developement with them! It's what the people of watford have always voted for, Now everyone is whining - wish they would make their minds up! G_Whiz
  • Score: 9

10:38am Wed 21 May 14

Bloodwags says...

In all this debate about accessing the new road from Dalton's Way, has no-one spotted that traffic leaving the hospital via the new road would be permitted to turn LEFT onto Wiggenhall towards the Hornets Gyratory. This will surely clog that particular hornets nest even more and northbound traffic on Wiggenhall Road from Dotty's beloved Oxhey may as well forget ever getting across the junction. More important than who can enter the hospital on the new road, traffic leaving the hospital in that direction (including residents of the 750 new homes, heaven forbid) should not be permitted to turn left.
In all this debate about accessing the new road from Dalton's Way, has no-one spotted that traffic leaving the hospital via the new road would be permitted to turn LEFT onto Wiggenhall towards the Hornets Gyratory. This will surely clog that particular hornets nest even more and northbound traffic on Wiggenhall Road from Dotty's beloved Oxhey may as well forget ever getting across the junction. More important than who can enter the hospital on the new road, traffic leaving the hospital in that direction (including residents of the 750 new homes, heaven forbid) should not be permitted to turn left. Bloodwags
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 21 May 14

garston tony says...

D_Penn wrote:
@Annie1951 You said: 'As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area.' It would be nice to think that a sensible chunk of the campus land could be allocated to parking to alleviate some of the West Watford parking issues too, but it won't happen of course. Some time ago I also tried to put forward that a new hospital (if we ever get one) should have a multi-storey car park which would be free to patients and visitors and thus reduce the stress that people feel when sick or with relatives in hospital. My view is that it is utterly ridiculous that healthy people can park free at Tescos, Sainsbury etc. but sick people and their visitors are charged an exorbitant £2 an hour, every hour, day and night. It's inhumane. A while back now, the chap presenting the hospital project that I raised this with shrugged his shoulders and said it wasn't in the plan because with the good public transport access people were expected to use that rather than drive. He seemed oblivious to the fact that patients attending a hospital tend to be unwell and waiting at a bus stop for twenty minutes is unlikely to be helpful to their recovery. He also didn't seem overly bothered when I suggested that sick people appreciate vistors and that taking a bus is slow, expensive and awful in bad weather making it a big deterrent and £2 an hour parking is also a massive deterrent meaning that visitors will probably just give up leaving those in hospital isolated. Recently I felt particularly angry when at 4am I was anxious as I was trying to get quickly to a relative who had been taken to A&E. I found myself standing in a very empty hospital car park, in the rain, searching for change to feed the meter. I'm pretty tough but I wondered how many people in a similar situation to me must have been very distressed. At least I could afford the fee, but many others on a tight budget could find that in the four hours it takes to get to the front of the queue of a busy A&E, that £8 for the parking is an unacceptable and unmanageable burden. It was plain to me standing in the rain that there is no compassion left any more when there is money to be made at the expense of motorists. All motorists are punished day after day for the sin of not walking, cycling or taking the bus even when common sense tells you that driving is the only sensible option. So whatever others may think, I will continue to fight to bring some balance back into the transport argument and stop those who have declared a nonsensical war on the motorist from taking common sense away from decision making.
Your post is spot on.

A few years ago I had to take a relative to the hospital in an emergency situation, it was bad enough having to deal with getting a ticket to park whilst they waited in pain in the car.

But having bought the maximum time allowed a few hours later despite my concerns about my relative i had to leave them to buy a new ticket. I did that as quickly as possible but returned to the ward to find that the doctors had discovered what was up with my relative and decided that they needed to be taken immediately to theatre for a life or death operation.

Thankfully the operation was successful but I felt awful that no one had been with them when they had received the news of the dire nature of their illness and that they needed to go to theatre immediately, and the fact that they could have passed away without someone having been there with them still haunts me today. And all because of the need to get a bleeping ticket.

They had to stay in hospital several weeks after that and due to visiting every day we saw and experienced many many things that should just not have happened.

A new or revamped hospital (and not just the buildings but on the care side of things) is long long overdue, the fact it hasnt already happened cant be pinned on the current government as Labour did nothing either despite having 13 years in power.

This whole mess needs to be sorted out
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Annie1951 You said: 'As it happens, I don't use my car unless I really have to because of parking issues in the area.' It would be nice to think that a sensible chunk of the campus land could be allocated to parking to alleviate some of the West Watford parking issues too, but it won't happen of course. Some time ago I also tried to put forward that a new hospital (if we ever get one) should have a multi-storey car park which would be free to patients and visitors and thus reduce the stress that people feel when sick or with relatives in hospital. My view is that it is utterly ridiculous that healthy people can park free at Tescos, Sainsbury etc. but sick people and their visitors are charged an exorbitant £2 an hour, every hour, day and night. It's inhumane. A while back now, the chap presenting the hospital project that I raised this with shrugged his shoulders and said it wasn't in the plan because with the good public transport access people were expected to use that rather than drive. He seemed oblivious to the fact that patients attending a hospital tend to be unwell and waiting at a bus stop for twenty minutes is unlikely to be helpful to their recovery. He also didn't seem overly bothered when I suggested that sick people appreciate vistors and that taking a bus is slow, expensive and awful in bad weather making it a big deterrent and £2 an hour parking is also a massive deterrent meaning that visitors will probably just give up leaving those in hospital isolated. Recently I felt particularly angry when at 4am I was anxious as I was trying to get quickly to a relative who had been taken to A&E. I found myself standing in a very empty hospital car park, in the rain, searching for change to feed the meter. I'm pretty tough but I wondered how many people in a similar situation to me must have been very distressed. At least I could afford the fee, but many others on a tight budget could find that in the four hours it takes to get to the front of the queue of a busy A&E, that £8 for the parking is an unacceptable and unmanageable burden. It was plain to me standing in the rain that there is no compassion left any more when there is money to be made at the expense of motorists. All motorists are punished day after day for the sin of not walking, cycling or taking the bus even when common sense tells you that driving is the only sensible option. So whatever others may think, I will continue to fight to bring some balance back into the transport argument and stop those who have declared a nonsensical war on the motorist from taking common sense away from decision making.[/p][/quote]Your post is spot on. A few years ago I had to take a relative to the hospital in an emergency situation, it was bad enough having to deal with getting a ticket to park whilst they waited in pain in the car. But having bought the maximum time allowed a few hours later despite my concerns about my relative i had to leave them to buy a new ticket. I did that as quickly as possible but returned to the ward to find that the doctors had discovered what was up with my relative and decided that they needed to be taken immediately to theatre for a life or death operation. Thankfully the operation was successful but I felt awful that no one had been with them when they had received the news of the dire nature of their illness and that they needed to go to theatre immediately, and the fact that they could have passed away without someone having been there with them still haunts me today. And all because of the need to get a bleeping ticket. They had to stay in hospital several weeks after that and due to visiting every day we saw and experienced many many things that should just not have happened. A new or revamped hospital (and not just the buildings but on the care side of things) is long long overdue, the fact it hasnt already happened cant be pinned on the current government as Labour did nothing either despite having 13 years in power. This whole mess needs to be sorted out garston tony
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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