Just Because A Document Is Big, It Doesn’t Mean It Is Right

If you look on the District Council website here and look down the page you can find and download the? Environmental Statement ? Appendix G ? Transport Assessment and Travel Plan (updated May 2015) It’s a big document (19Mb) and it’s 253 pages long. The 132nd page is surprising.

The opening summary includes the following:
traffdoc1That certainly sounds encouraging , doesn’t it. There’s an acknowledgment of the existing problems, and an assessment of all the junctions. The trouble is, the mathematical model they use to study our local road network seems to be wildly different to the real life situation. A? good example is on the 132nd page of the document (page 33 of section 6) . This is about the Rawreth Lane / Hullbridge Road junction. It has a table that shows the amount of queuing traffic in their mathematical model compared with what was found on an actual survey :

traffdoc2There’s a lot of figures here, so we have used colours to show some of the big differences between the model and what was found in a real traffic survey.

The? figures marked in green show the average number of vehicles on the Hullbridge side of the mini-roundabout queuing in the morning peak. Their model predicts only 2 vehicles – the survey showed 10!

The? figures marked in red show the maximum? number of vehicles on the Hullbridge side of the mini-roundabout queuing in the morning peak.Their model predicts only 1 vehicle – the survey showed 19! (You may also wonder how the average figure in the model can be higher than the maximum)

The? figures marked in orange show the maximum number of vehicles queuing in Rawreth Lane in the evening peak. Their model predicts 4 , the survey showed 23!

We really don’t understand how Countyside’s consultants can say that “this is a good reflection of the existing operation of the junction , and hence fit for purpose for testing proposed devlopments”

About the author, admin

  • How can they post such blatant unthruths about the numbers of vehicles using Rawreth Lane, I don’t think I have ever come down Rawreth Lane without at Least 8-10 vehicles waiting at the roundabout which clearly is worse during the rush hours. However my main concern is what will the additional housing do to Rayleigh town it’s already difficult to get through during normal hours. I also understand that affordable houses will be offered to people outside the area with an incentive to move out of London, why ? If anybody needs these it’s our younger generation not outsiders. Perhaps they could offer incentives for us to move out of Rayleigh !

  • That old saying “lies, damn lies, and statistics” is so true. It also goes to prove that if a document is big enough you can hide things away in it and hope everyone gives up taking notice of what they are reading by the time they get to the bit you really don’t want them to analyse too much. Well done for spotting it Chris

  • What will happen to traffic if this development and the Hullbridge one went ahead?
    Another 1000 cars coming out of Hullbridge added to the extra traffic in Rawreth Lane!
    Probably queuing back to Watery Lane. Total chaos, people delayed getting to work and school.

  • You can hide things like traffic details and alike but at the end of the day if you pass this building work your name is at the front and your neck is on the chopping block

  • Chris Stanley – you say neck on the chopping block, but I think the electorate in the last elections has already sent a clear message to RDC that this isn’t the case, so I’m sorry I think they will walk away scot-free from this madness. I expect they have already lined up their scapegoat

  • Yes you may be right but those that do not live near by have maybe voted for this, and those that will be living on these estates may be blaming RDC for not getting it right in the first place. Only if we talked to the residents that live locally can we get the right answer. It is the purpose of the council to work with the residents of Rochford/Rayleigh and not for any other . As you say, this is madness but no-one seems to care.

  • James is correct in that Conservatives councillors were re-elected with increased majorities. However, it will be very interesting to see which way they vote now the election is over. The good news is that all District Council members are up for re election next year and this may help lead to another refusal of Countryside proposals. Question

    If the Rawreth Lane/ Hullbridge Road junction is to be improved before any development and other roads who will pay? Highways or Countryside?
    Does it need improving anyway?
    Should our proposal for a slip road from Rawreth Lane onto Hullbridge Road been approved ages ago?

  • Well spotted Admin –
    The only possable reason for them publishing this is that they are now aware that a growing number of the electorate have become
    aware of the impact that all the Local Plans ( without matching Infrastructure ) are going to have on particularly the existing roads.

    But they have shot themselves in the foot by comparing ‘study with modelled numbers’ – they quite clearly show a massive disconnect,
    and don’t even model 10-15 years of multi site ( Countryside / Rawreth Ind Estate / Hullbridge ) construction traffic all using Rawreth Lane / Hullbridge Road.

    Surely the Parish Council / Town Council / Ward Councillors can now stand up and dispute these figures openly – and of course this
    also underlines all the points so eloquently made by our MP at the last committee meeting on 29/01/2015 , hopefully he will be making
    them all again at the Hullbridge application meeting on 23/07/15 ???????.

    But the public must also step up to the mark , we need a mass turnout for both the Hullbridge and Countryside re-submission nights in
    the Council Chamber , and if they then still pass it then vote them out at the Next Council elections for sure , come on people get off your butt and be heard.

  • Yep, and mid school holidays ( when lots of families are away is the usual trick ) – funnily enough Countryside are not really the culprits,
    the primary fault ( incompetence ) is with RDC failing in it’s ability to evaluate the suitability of sites , all they saw was big open space ,
    completely missing the Infrastructure shortfalls. Next up for punishment is the ECC ( Highways ) , they are even more culpable in not
    flagging up the unsustainability of local roads / junctions – as they are supposed to be the “experts” , most people would be sacked for such fundamental errors.

  • I believe it is completely irrelevant if these figures represent reality or not. RDC’s core strategy has deemed this area to be the best area of Rayleigh for development, so the choice is already made. One planning application may be rejected, maybe 2, but there will be a third, or however many are necessary until the roads are gridlocked, and this area is under a sea of houses, to provide housing for London’s overspill. If you dont like this the change the core strategy. The core strategy was based on very dubious traffic and population flow information. The fact that the core strategy prefers on a single area of Rayleigh for all its development needs, shows what a sham the whole thing is.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}