Today's most viewed
Lyndhurst bypass – which would you build?
 |
| THE TWIN OPTIONS: The map shows the two remaining proposals. |
Click here to see a bigger version of the routes
Controversial proposals for a bypass to solve one of Hampshire's worst bottlenecks have been whittled down to two routes, which the Daily Echo can reveal today.
After decades of campaigning, a bypass around Lyndhurst in the New Forest is finally getting serious consideration.
An emergency meeting has been called in Lyndhurst tonight when residents will get a first look at the two options being submitted to county bosses.
On Monday, the county's Cabinet will meet to debate whether to support a bypass scheme.
The top choice being recommended is an "eastern inner link road", leaving the A337 just north of Racecourse View and passing south of the golf course, joining the A35 opposite Bolton's Bench.
The second favourite is a "western link road" that would leave the A337 further north of Lyndhurst and join the A35 Bournemouth Road near its junction with Chapel Lane.
Former contentious proposals to tunnel under Bolton's Bench have now been dismissed.
Initial suggestions included five potential bypass routes. Following consideration by the county's environment and transport select committee and independent consultants Mott MacDonald, these have now been amended to the two options revealed today.
Mott MacDonald and the county's director of environment, Stuart Jarvis, both support the eastern inner link road. It is estimated to cost up to £9m.
Green campaigners, including New Forest Friends of the Earth and the New Forest Association, have long opposed the bypass plans but frequent traffic jams have left many thinking a bypass is the only solution.
Representatives from Lynd-hurst, including the parish council's bypass committee and the residents' association, will speak at the meeting and if the Cabinet supports the idea, it will bid for funding from the South East Regional Transport Board next month.
George Bisson, Lyndhurst Parish Council chairman, said: "Not everybody wants a bypass, but we are representing the views of the majority of the village. We are against any form of inner route that carves into the village and messes around with traffic flows and traffic lights.
"We can only hope they will listen to what we believe is common sense."
Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Bank Residents' Association has distributed 750 leaflets urging people to attend a last-minute meeting. A representative will then present the residents' views to the county council's Cabinet.
The residents' association meeting will take place at 7.30pm in Lyndhurst Community Centre.
Read the reports in full
- Click HERE for
Summary of recommendations for the Cabinet to approve:
- Click HERE for
Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny Committee Review findings:
- Click HERE for
Report by independent consultants Mott MacDonald:
- Click HERE for
Report by Hampshire County Council director of environment Stuart Jarvis: (last 2 pages of this include graphics of favoured routes)
- Click HERE for
Overview report by HCC environment department:
8:21am Thursday 27th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Bemused on 9:03am Thu 27 Mar 08
If you take option 2, the sensible route is to also extend through Appletree court, across the land currently for sale at Vernalls farm, between Brooklands and the old A.I. centre to exit by Foxlease entrance. A half measure to Boltons bench still leaves the traffic to go through Lyndhurst. Traffic wishing to join the A35 then simply has to turn righ to join at Swan Green. Simple really? "I think not"
If you take option 2, the sensible route is to also extend through Appletree court, across the land currently for sale at Vernalls farm, between Brooklands and the old A.I. centre to exit by Foxlease entrance. A half measure to Boltons bench still leaves the traffic to go through Lyndhurst. Traffic wishing to join the A35 then simply has to turn righ to join at Swan Green. Simple really? "I think not"
Posted by: Harry Remmington, New Forest on 9:14am Thu 27 Mar 08
[bold]Any Route - just get on with it.[/bold]
Any Route - just get on with it. Posted by: Fred on 9:17am Thu 27 Mar 08
Not clear what either bypass actually achieves. Are those proposing these routes guaranteeing the results in some way - perhaps with their jobs?
Not clear what either bypass actually achieves. Are those proposing these routes guaranteeing the results in some way - perhaps with their jobs?
Posted by: Big D, at work on 9:25am Thu 27 Mar 08
Neither!!!!
What a cop out!!! Neither provide an aequate solution for traffic travelling east/west. Because of do-gooders and people with nothing better to do than moan, yet again a pathetic compromise is put forward.
Useless, absolutely useless!!!
Neither!!!!
What a cop out!!! Neither provide an aequate solution for traffic travelling east/west. Because of do-gooders and people with nothing better to do than moan, yet again a pathetic compromise is put forward.
Useless, absolutely useless!!!
Posted by: Andy, Locks Heath on 9:26am Thu 27 Mar 08
Agree with Bemused. I favour option 2 - but only because it doesn't cut off so much Forest. Land inside Option 1 would slowly become prey to development. I feel desperately sad about the impact on Boltons Bench, but the needs of Lyndhurst residents have to take priority.
Agree with Bemused. I favour option 2 - but only because it doesn't cut off so much Forest. Land inside Option 1 would slowly become prey to development. I feel desperately sad about the impact on Boltons Bench, but the needs of Lyndhurst residents have to take priority.
Posted by: David Marshall, cherries on 10:27am Thu 27 Mar 08
With regards to Option 2, does anyone know if the section of the A337 north of the police station but after the turn off to the bybass will be ripped up and restored to the forest as some kind of "compensation".
Also does Option 1 allow for the pedestrianisation of the high street - if not you are going to have problems at the bottom of the high street as 38T trucks coming along the bypass will need to use up both lanes when turning left at the bottom of the hight street?
I am sure my gran is chuckling in her grave (Bolton's Bench) that we are still talking about a bypass at least 40 odd years later!!
With regards to Option 2, does anyone know if the section of the A337 north of the police station but after the turn off to the bybass will be ripped up and restored to the forest as some kind of "compensation".
Also does Option 1 allow for the pedestrianisation of the high street - if not you are going to have problems at the bottom of the high street as 38T trucks coming along the bypass will need to use up both lanes when turning left at the bottom of the hight street?
I am sure my gran is chuckling in her grave (Bolton's Bench) that we are still talking about a bypass at least 40 odd years later!!
Posted by: Anon, Southampton on 10:30am Thu 27 Mar 08
Neither provide an adequate solution.
Option 2 actually seems to be a waste of time. No one goes from the A35->A337 or vice versa, they want to cross Lyndhurst going to Brockenhurst or Christchurch.
All option 2 is going to do is put the Southern traffic jam on the new road - the cars will need to turn right across traffic onto the A35 to go South or West.
It doesn't help people coming from those directions one bit.
Option 1 may be the better of both as it diverts traffic away from Lyndhurst, but I am sure the NIMBYs will put a stop to it.
Neither provide an adequate solution.
Option 2 actually seems to be a waste of time. No one goes from the A35->A337 or vice versa, they want to cross Lyndhurst going to Brockenhurst or Christchurch.
All option 2 is going to do is put the Southern traffic jam on the new road - the cars will need to turn right across traffic onto the A35 to go South or West.
It doesn't help people coming from those directions one bit.
Option 1 may be the better of both as it diverts traffic away from Lyndhurst, but I am sure the NIMBYs will put a stop to it.
Posted by: Big Clem, on the road on 11:20am Thu 27 Mar 08
Every-one is overlooking the obvious. The best solution to by-pass Lyndhurst would be to build an elevated dual carriageway OVER the town, starting half a mile before Bolton's bench and dropping down at Swan Green. Problem solved!.
Every-one is overlooking the obvious. The best solution to by-pass Lyndhurst would be to build an elevated dual carriageway OVER the town, starting half a mile before Bolton's bench and dropping down at Swan Green. Problem solved!.
Posted by: Mike, So'ton on 11:31am Thu 27 Mar 08
Option 2 solves nothing!! And either link is just 1/2 the job. I thought the idea of a bypass was to divert stuff AROUND an object, not funnel it all in from 1 direction!
I suppose these are the same muppets who 'design' road schemes in the rest of Hampshire...
Option 2 solves nothing!! And either link is just 1/2 the job. I thought the idea of a bypass was to divert stuff AROUND an object, not funnel it all in from 1 direction!
I suppose these are the same muppets who 'design' road schemes in the rest of Hampshire...
Posted by: Denzil, Portswood on 11:57am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Big Clem[/bold] wrote:
Every-one is overlooking the obvious. The best solution to by-pass Lyndhurst would be to build an elevated dual carriageway OVER the town, starting half a mile before Bolton's bench and dropping down at Swan Green. Problem solved!.[/quote] Your scheme does have some merit. If the concrete could be painted green that would help hide the flyover.
Big Clem wrote:
Every-one is overlooking the obvious. The best solution to by-pass Lyndhurst would be to build an elevated dual carriageway OVER the town, starting half a mile before Bolton's bench and dropping down at Swan Green. Problem solved!.
Your scheme does have some merit. If the concrete could be painted green that would help hide the flyover.
Posted by: Simon, New Forest on 12:20pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Whilst this bypass appears on the face of it to try to resolve issues with traffic coming from Cadnam towards Lyndhurst by either diverting it to Boltons Bench or the A35. The planners seemed to have forgotten those who want to get on the road to Brockenhurst (A337) or in fact coming the other way. Perhaps by having the ringroad will clear Lyndhurst for a traffic attack from the South!
Whilst this bypass appears on the face of it to try to resolve issues with traffic coming from Cadnam towards Lyndhurst by either diverting it to Boltons Bench or the A35. The planners seemed to have forgotten those who want to get on the road to Brockenhurst (A337) or in fact coming the other way. Perhaps by having the ringroad will clear Lyndhurst for a traffic attack from the South!
Posted by: Steve, Southampton on 12:25pm Thu 27 Mar 08
A Lyndhurst obital, a mini M25 ;)
A Lyndhurst obital, a mini M25 ;)
Posted by: bobsey on 1:17pm Thu 27 Mar 08
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
Posted by: Lucifer, Lyndhurst on 2:14pm Thu 27 Mar 08
I've lived in Lyndhurst all my life and the new plans are a waste of time and will not solve the problem surely the money could be better spent else where?
I've lived in Lyndhurst all my life and the new plans are a waste of time and will not solve the problem surely the money could be better spent else where?
Posted by: Echo Warrior on 2:16pm Thu 27 Mar 08
How long till we stick our noses in?
How long till we stick our noses in?
Posted by: Jobbie, Southampton on 2:17pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bobsey[/bold] wrote:
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass. [/quote] Isn't that the reason for building the bypass? To see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it? i.e. the traffic jams.
Lyndhurst will survive perfectly well, if not prosper, without the volume of traffic. Not everyone stops in Lyndhurst to shop on their way through, in fact I'd wager that most people are simply travelling through, and those that stop, intended to do so anway. Both parties will benefit from a bypass then.
bobsey wrote:
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
Isn't that the reason for building the bypass? To see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it? i.e. the traffic jams.
Lyndhurst will survive perfectly well, if not prosper, without the volume of traffic. Not everyone stops in Lyndhurst to shop on their way through, in fact I'd wager that most people are simply travelling through, and those that stop, intended to do so anway. Both parties will benefit from a bypass then.
Posted by: Roger, Southampton on 2:57pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]bobsey[/bold] wrote:
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
[/quote] The traffic is so bad in the summer that you don't need to park - just jump out the car in the traffic jam go shopping and get back in before the queue moves :-)
I think they should leave the roads as is as currently Lyndhurst serves the purpose of restricting too much traffic going into the forest, so its a more pleasent place for those of use that take the train to Beaulieu Road or Brock and cycle.
bobsey wrote:
If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
The traffic is so bad in the summer that you don't need to park - just jump out the car in the traffic jam go shopping and get back in before the queue moves :-)
I think they should leave the roads as is as currently Lyndhurst serves the purpose of restricting too much traffic going into the forest, so its a more pleasent place for those of use that take the train to Beaulieu Road or Brock and cycle.
Posted by: Lucifer, Lyndhurst on 4:07pm Thu 27 Mar 08
£9m makes me so angry! There are so many other good and important campaigns that they could really make a difference to in OUR society that they could be spending our tax money on. Option 2 is better than nothing I suppose but £9m? Who ever invented option 1 needs their head examining! AND if they have really run out on ideas on what to spend £9m on, even I'm sure I could think of something much better!
£9m makes me so angry! There are so many other good and important campaigns that they could really make a difference to in OUR society that they could be spending our tax money on. Option 2 is better than nothing I suppose but £9m? Who ever invented option 1 needs their head examining! AND if they have really run out on ideas on what to spend £9m on, even I'm sure I could think of something much better!
Posted by: Forest Flattener, Southampton on 4:24pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Such lilly livered solutions. What would the Victorians say?
What the forest needs is the M270 - six lanes from junction 1 of the M27 - with flyovers for Lyndhurst (that spire as a pillar) and Brockenhurst, then a suspension bridge to Yarmouth.
It wouldn't cost much and would be ready in time for petrol to hit £10 a litre.
Traffic, not trees! Pollution, not ponies!
Such lilly livered solutions. What would the Victorians say?
What the forest needs is the M270 - six lanes from junction 1 of the M27 - with flyovers for Lyndhurst (that spire as a pillar) and Brockenhurst, then a suspension bridge to Yarmouth.
It wouldn't cost much and would be ready in time for petrol to hit £10 a litre.
Traffic, not trees! Pollution, not ponies!
Posted by: David Marshall, Brock on 4:32pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Roger[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bobsey[/bold] wrote: If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass. [/quote] The traffic is so bad in the summer that you don\'t need to park - just jump out the car in the traffic jam go shopping and get back in before the queue moves :-) I think they should leave the roads as is as currently Lyndhurst serves the purpose of restricting too much traffic going into the forest, so its a more pleasent place for those of use that take the train to Beaulieu Road or Brock and cycle. [/quote] Good point Roger!
The current queues acts as a very good throttle on the numbers of people coming into the forest by car at busy times - after all any local with an ouce of intelligence knows to avoid using the road at busy times.
Also, as pointed out on this thread, a large proportion of the traffic is headed north/south: Cadnam - Lym/Brock. An effective bypass would increase traffic numbers signifcantly at peak times and lead to new blockages down the road at Brock - in recent years the queues at the crossing are getting longer and longer.
Roger wrote:
bobsey wrote: If a bypass is built it will see the end of Lyndhurst as we know it now.At the moment, people stop in the town to go around the shops, this will certainly finish if they have to get off a main road. The ones who want a bypass should go around the country and see the small towns that are now empty of shops and rundown because of a bypass.
The traffic is so bad in the summer that you don\'t need to park - just jump out the car in the traffic jam go shopping and get back in before the queue moves :-) I think they should leave the roads as is as currently Lyndhurst serves the purpose of restricting too much traffic going into the forest, so its a more pleasent place for those of use that take the train to Beaulieu Road or Brock and cycle.
Good point Roger!
The current queues acts as a very good throttle on the numbers of people coming into the forest by car at busy times - after all any local with an ouce of intelligence knows to avoid using the road at busy times.
Also, as pointed out on this thread, a large proportion of the traffic is headed north/south: Cadnam - Lym/Brock. An effective bypass would increase traffic numbers signifcantly at peak times and lead to new blockages down the road at Brock - in recent years the queues at the crossing are getting longer and longer.
Posted by: mayus karia, Southampton on 5:42pm Thu 27 Mar 08
The answer to your problems is to call in councilor learney, the lib dem MP she is top notch and always gets the job done. Plus if you all took a leaf out of her book and cycled instead of driving then you could all enjoy the real delights that the forrest has to offer!. Plus if you sign up for my kinky councilor calendar we might just be able to get the lovely learney to show us her forest, i know where i would like to park my bike, what a lady
The answer to your problems is to call in councilor learney, the lib dem MP she is top notch and always gets the job done. Plus if you all took a leaf out of her book and cycled instead of driving then you could all enjoy the real delights that the forrest has to offer!. Plus if you sign up for my kinky councilor calendar we might just be able to get the lovely learney to show us her forest, i know where i would like to park my bike, what a lady
Posted by: Shazza on 6:38pm Thu 27 Mar 08
I would chose option C, bull-doze the forest and tarmac it.
I would chose option C, bull-doze the forest and tarmac it.
Posted by: Sceptic, Waterside on 6:50pm Thu 27 Mar 08
Option 1 is pointless! Option 2 is far better and must be cheaper, surely? Maybe the money they save by building the much shorter route they could build an ICE RINK!
Why don't they open an off-road route from Ashurst to Denny Wood through to Brock'?
The only trouble with Option 2 is that they may have to build through The Custards and thatS obviously going to need some serious foundations!
WHATS UP? DO SOME OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON TALKING B*****S THEN?
THE LOCALS WONT LET THEM BUILD ANY BYPASS BECAUSE AS EVERYONE KNOWS..LYNDHURST IS SNOBSVILLE AND FULL OF PLASTIC FORESTERS!..in my opinion!
Option 1 is pointless! Option 2 is far better and must be cheaper, surely? Maybe the money they save by building the much shorter route they could build an ICE RINK!
Why don't they open an off-road route from Ashurst to Denny Wood through to Brock'?
The only trouble with Option 2 is that they may have to build through The Custards and thatS obviously going to need some serious foundations!
WHATS UP? DO SOME OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON TALKING B*****S THEN?
THE LOCALS WONT LET THEM BUILD ANY BYPASS BECAUSE AS EVERYONE KNOWS..LYNDHURST IS SNOBSVILLE AND FULL OF PLASTIC FORESTERS!..in my opinion!
Posted by: Fartmeister, The Real World on 7:40pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sceptic[/bold] wrote:
Option 1 is pointless! Option 2 is far better and must be cheaper, surely? Maybe the money they save by building the much shorter route they could build an ICE RINK!
Why don't they open an off-road route from Ashurst to Denny Wood through to Brock'?
The only trouble with Option 2 is that they may have to build through The Custards and thatS obviously going to need some serious foundations!
WHATS UP? DO SOME OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON TALKING B*****S THEN?
THE LOCALS WONT LET THEM BUILD ANY BYPASS BECAUSE AS EVERYONE KNOWS..LYNDHURST IS SNOBSVILLE AND FULL OF PLASTIC FORESTERS!..in my opinion![/quote] Get a life septic.
Sceptic wrote:
Option 1 is pointless! Option 2 is far better and must be cheaper, surely? Maybe the money they save by building the much shorter route they could build an ICE RINK!
Why don't they open an off-road route from Ashurst to Denny Wood through to Brock'?
The only trouble with Option 2 is that they may have to build through The Custards and thatS obviously going to need some serious foundations!
WHATS UP? DO SOME OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON TALKING B*****S THEN?
THE LOCALS WONT LET THEM BUILD ANY BYPASS BECAUSE AS EVERYONE KNOWS..LYNDHURST IS SNOBSVILLE AND FULL OF PLASTIC FORESTERS!..in my opinion!
Get a life septic.
Posted by: Sceptic, Waterside on 7:44pm Thu 27 Mar 08
No...it's sCeptic! Some body who calls themself 'Fartmeister' and claims to be from 'The Real World' reckons 'I' should get a life..BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAH.....etc
No...it's sCeptic! Some body who calls themself 'Fartmeister' and claims to be from 'The Real World' reckons 'I' should get a life..BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAH.....etc
Posted by: local on 8:07pm Thu 27 Mar 08
A Lyndhurst bypass reducing town centre trade? Don't kid yourself. I suppose the number of shoppers in Southampton reduced when they pedestrianised Above Bar and built the M27 did it?
It's hardly going to swallow up the forest. Put it in perspective. A 7.3 metre wide road that is one or two kilometres long; and how many acres of unspoilt New Forest is there? Talk about scaremongering. You'd think planners were planning to convert the New Forest into a massive new container port the way some environmentalists and NIMBYs went on. Well, environmentalists and NIMBYs, go shopping in Lyndhurst and choke on the emmissions; emissions that woud be greatly reduced with a bypass.
A Lyndhurst bypass reducing town centre trade? Don't kid yourself. I suppose the number of shoppers in Southampton reduced when they pedestrianised Above Bar and built the M27 did it?
It's hardly going to swallow up the forest. Put it in perspective. A 7.3 metre wide road that is one or two kilometres long; and how many acres of unspoilt New Forest is there? Talk about scaremongering. You'd think planners were planning to convert the New Forest into a massive new container port the way some environmentalists and NIMBYs went on. Well, environmentalists and NIMBYs, go shopping in Lyndhurst and choke on the emmissions; emissions that woud be greatly reduced with a bypass.
Posted by: Chris Chapman, Bitterne on 12:42am Fri 28 Mar 08
Option 1 is the most direct, but will be vastly expensive & will no doubt raise Council Tax for Residents, who probably won't even use it. Option 2 is just silly. How about option 3.. do away with the silly 1 way system & allow traffic to turn right at the end of the 337 at the High Street? this is simple & would be effective at minimal cost, however, it won't be considered, as it has probably cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds of local Tax Payers hard earned money, to come up with the proposals already in place. The Council will have to try & justify that kind of money, as well as keeping the Sherry Cabinet stocked up, & will therefore opt for something that appears to be highly elaborate & well thought out,but will cost millions, won't happen for ten years & probably won't solve the problem.
Option 1 is the most direct, but will be vastly expensive & will no doubt raise Council Tax for Residents, who probably won't even use it. Option 2 is just silly. How about option 3.. do away with the silly 1 way system & allow traffic to turn right at the end of the 337 at the High Street? this is simple & would be effective at minimal cost, however, it won't be considered, as it has probably cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds of local Tax Payers hard earned money, to come up with the proposals already in place. The Council will have to try & justify that kind of money, as well as keeping the Sherry Cabinet stocked up, & will therefore opt for something that appears to be highly elaborate & well thought out,but will cost millions, won't happen for ten years & probably won't solve the problem.
Posted by: tinanews, Lyndhurst on 11:05am Fri 28 Mar 08
I am opposed to any new road and belive that HCC should look at better traffic management, using existing road networks. Ban all HGV's from the village, this is possible with the use of enforcment cameras that detect the axle weight that also collect data for prosecution, the fines should be increased from the poultry current £30 to £100 as in London plus penalty points. [bold]I strongly advise all traffic travelling to Lymington/Brockenhur
st from the Southampton and the east to use the M27/junction 2, A326/A35 Colbury junction into Lyndhurst ( drive time 11 mins) and they will have a clear run through the bottom of the village.[/bold] The Mott Gifford report states that option 2 will only improve traffic flow by 17%, this improvement will be absorbed within months, so back to square one. Queues will still happen as it is proposed to swop one set of traffic lights at the HIgh Street for 2 roundabouts and another set of traffic lights at the bottom of the High Street. Plus this route will still allow HGV's and cars turning left at the top of the High Street onto the A337 towards Cadnam. Romsey Road will be one way northbound only meaning that all local traffic from the north and west will have to use the new road to access the school and top of the High Street. The High Street will not be predestrianised as cyclists, buses and delivery lorries will still have access.
Finally queues into the village are not 24/7 in fact for probably less than 9% of the total time in a year. Please do work this out, I estimated 2 hours per day, every day (this is in fact a great over estimation, as there are no queues into the village in Jan, Feb, Mar, Oct, Nov, Dec).
HCC should concentrate on improving the A32 into Gosport as this road is known to a nightmare as well as danger to cyclists and pedestrians
I am opposed to any new road and belive that HCC should look at better traffic management, using existing road networks. Ban all HGV's from the village, this is possible with the use of enforcment cameras that detect the axle weight that also collect data for prosecution, the fines should be increased from the poultry current £30 to £100 as in London plus penalty points.
I strongly advise all traffic travelling to Lymington/Brockenhur
st from the Southampton and the east to use the M27/junction 2, A326/A35 Colbury junction into Lyndhurst ( drive time 11 mins) and they will have a clear run through the bottom of the village. The Mott Gifford report states that option 2 will only improve traffic flow by 17%, this improvement will be absorbed within months, so back to square one. Queues will still happen as it is proposed to swop one set of traffic lights at the HIgh Street for 2 roundabouts and another set of traffic lights at the bottom of the High Street. Plus this route will still allow HGV's and cars turning left at the top of the High Street onto the A337 towards Cadnam. Romsey Road will be one way northbound only meaning that all local traffic from the north and west will have to use the new road to access the school and top of the High Street. The High Street will not be predestrianised as cyclists, buses and delivery lorries will still have access.
Finally queues into the village are not 24/7 in fact for probably less than 9% of the total time in a year. Please do work this out, I estimated 2 hours per day, every day (this is in fact a great over estimation, as there are no queues into the village in Jan, Feb, Mar, Oct, Nov, Dec).
HCC should concentrate on improving the A32 into Gosport as this road is known to a nightmare as well as danger to cyclists and pedestrians
Posted by: tinanews, southampton on 2:58pm Fri 28 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
Agree with Bemused. I favour option 2 - but only because it doesn't cut off so much Forest. Land inside Option 1 would slowly become prey to development. I feel desperately sad about the impact on Boltons Bench, but the needs of Lyndhurst residents have to take priority. [/quote] Sorry Andy but you are mistaken in your belief that the residents of Lyndhurst actually want these routes. In fact at last nights meeting in the village of over 350 residents it was a unanimous rejection of both routes. [bold]HCC may say that we do according to a MORI poll but in fact out of the 525 people surveyed only 22.6% of them resided in Lyndhurst the rest 77.4% were from Ringwood, Lymington, Totton, Hythe, New Milton and the list goes on, so when the survey states that 51% of Lyndhurst residents would accept an inner route, this is simply not true.[/bold] Please see my earlier posting for the queue hassle free route into Lyndhurst via the A326/A35 and other comments regarding the schemes.
Andy wrote:
Agree with Bemused. I favour option 2 - but only because it doesn't cut off so much Forest. Land inside Option 1 would slowly become prey to development. I feel desperately sad about the impact on Boltons Bench, but the needs of Lyndhurst residents have to take priority.
Sorry Andy but you are mistaken in your belief that the residents of Lyndhurst actually want these routes. In fact at last nights meeting in the village of over 350 residents it was a unanimous rejection of both routes.
HCC may say that we do according to a MORI poll but in fact out of the 525 people surveyed only 22.6% of them resided in Lyndhurst the rest 77.4% were from Ringwood, Lymington, Totton, Hythe, New Milton and the list goes on, so when the survey states that 51% of Lyndhurst residents would accept an inner route, this is simply not true. Please see my earlier posting for the queue hassle free route into Lyndhurst via the A326/A35 and other comments regarding the schemes.
Posted by: tinanews, southampton on 3:03pm Fri 28 Mar 08
[quote][bold]David Marshall[/bold] wrote:
With regards to Option 2, does anyone know if the section of the A337 north of the police station but after the turn off to the bybass will be ripped up and restored to the forest as some kind of "compensation". Also does Option 1 allow for the pedestrianisation of the high street - if not you are going to have problems at the bottom of the high street as 38T trucks coming along the bypass will need to use up both lanes when turning left at the bottom of the hight street? I am sure my gran is chuckling in her grave (Bolton's Bench) that we are still talking about a bypass at least 40 odd years later!![/quote] Hi Dave
please see the link to all of the documents regrding this issue on the HCC site, it shows that no the High Street will not be truely pedestrianised, as cyclists, buses an delivery vehicles will still have access!
yes there will still be 38T lorries vying with each other to turn around the tight corner at the bottom of the High Street. This corner is already a very dangerous one to cross with one way traffic let alone 2 way
http://www3.hants.go
v.uk/scrutiny/scruti
ny-committees/enviro
nment-transportation
/cx-policyunit-hccen
cvdeptevidence.htm
David Marshall wrote:
With regards to Option 2, does anyone know if the section of the A337 north of the police station but after the turn off to the bybass will be ripped up and restored to the forest as some kind of "compensation". Also does Option 1 allow for the pedestrianisation of the high street - if not you are going to have problems at the bottom of the high street as 38T trucks coming along the bypass will need to use up both lanes when turning left at the bottom of the hight street? I am sure my gran is chuckling in her grave (Bolton's Bench) that we are still talking about a bypass at least 40 odd years later!!
Hi Dave
please see the link to all of the documents regrding this issue on the HCC site, it shows that no the High Street will not be truely pedestrianised, as cyclists, buses an delivery vehicles will still have access!
yes there will still be 38T lorries vying with each other to turn around the tight corner at the bottom of the High Street. This corner is already a very dangerous one to cross with one way traffic let alone 2 way
http://www3.hants.go
v.uk/scrutiny/scruti
ny-committees/enviro
nment-transportation
/cx-policyunit-hccen
cvdeptevidence.htm
Posted by: Derek, Dibden Purlieu on 7:37pm Fri 28 Mar 08
Did the NIMBY expression originate in Lyndhurst?
Did the NIMBY expression originate in Lyndhurst?
Posted by: bowlingbun, Lymington on 7:18pm Mon 31 Mar 08
How about a short term solution - as a Lymington resident I've queued in Lyndhurst too many times.
Until something better is thought out, why not knock down the antique shop on the left hand side at the beginning of the road to Cadnam. Then the left hand filter can be left on all the time and the queue northwards will be a thing of the past.
Send all the southbound traffic via Ashurst. They live on an A road - suitable for all traffic!
Otherwise convert Lyndhurst high street to two lanes.
Really though, there is only one answer, a proper by pass. How many other junctions of two A roads are there in the UK as bad as this one? How can you have an A road so unsuitable for lorries that they are banned from it.
The New Forest is of course a very special place but we still need lorries to deliver all our food etc.
Remember, that whilst the Forestry Commission etc. don't want to harm a bit of the Forest, the same organisation thinks its OK to bulldoze loads of trees in Ringwood Forest. Whatever happened to common sense.
Bowlingbun, frustrated owner of a 32 ton lorry.
How about a short term solution - as a Lymington resident I've queued in Lyndhurst too many times.
Until something better is thought out, why not knock down the antique shop on the left hand side at the beginning of the road to Cadnam. Then the left hand filter can be left on all the time and the queue northwards will be a thing of the past.
Send all the southbound traffic via Ashurst. They live on an A road - suitable for all traffic!
Otherwise convert Lyndhurst high street to two lanes.
Really though, there is only one answer, a proper by pass. How many other junctions of two A roads are there in the UK as bad as this one? How can you have an A road so unsuitable for lorries that they are banned from it.
The New Forest is of course a very special place but we still need lorries to deliver all our food etc.
Remember, that whilst the Forestry Commission etc. don't want to harm a bit of the Forest, the same organisation thinks its OK to bulldoze loads of trees in Ringwood Forest. Whatever happened to common sense.
Bowlingbun, frustrated owner of a 32 ton lorry.
Posted by: Pride's Pony, Lyndhurst on 1:50pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Sceptic should be taken to a quiet place and calmly put down.
[bold]NO[/bold] to Lyndhurst bypass
[bold]YES[/bold] to banning all non-essential HGV traffic on [bold]ANY[/bold] forest road with a possible pay-per-visit permit scheme for those HGVs making deliveries to the village. The same could also be applied to vehicles towing caravans, motor homes etc.
Maybe even a toll system for all non forest residents would help to keep the roads a little calmer.
First-class comments Tinanews! Good to see another Lyndhurst resident sticking up for our village. It does seem strange how the majority of the comments in favour of the bypass are made by outsiders.
Sceptic should be taken to a quiet place and calmly put down.
NO to Lyndhurst bypass
YES to banning all non-essential HGV traffic on
ANY forest road with a possible pay-per-visit permit scheme for those HGVs making deliveries to the village. The same could also be applied to vehicles towing caravans, motor homes etc.
Maybe even a toll system for all non forest residents would help to keep the roads a little calmer.
First-class comments Tinanews! Good to see another Lyndhurst resident sticking up for our village. It does seem strange how the majority of the comments in favour of the bypass are made by outsiders.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
