News

Work on A329M crash barriers began this week
advertisement

Ideas to source £4m A329M funds

February 26, 2010

Funding from a joint transport partnership could help provide crash barriers on the A329M, the leader of the opposition has suggested.

Councillor Prue Bray, leader of the Wokingham Lib Dems, used her submission about Wokingham Borough Council’s revenue budget to propose utilising Transport Innovation Fund money to pay the £4 million for crash barriers.

Council pledge £650,000 for crash barriers

The council is spending £650,000 on installing barriers along the A329M at its junction with the M4. Work began this week.

At last Thursday’s council meeting Cllr Bray said: “The A329M is virtually unique in being both a motorway that’s the responsibility of a local authority and a motorway without crash barriers.

“Unfortunately there have been a number of serious, sometimes fatal accidents, the most recent one only a couple of weeks ago.

“I appreciate that this is a very sensitive issue and I am not seeking to be sensationalist, but this is almost the only stretch of motorway in the country which has no barriers.”

She suggested using cash either from the Transport Innovation Fund, developer funds or the local transport plan to pay for a three-and-a-half mile long barrier along the motorway.

Crash barriers can help reduce fatalities because they help absorb some of the impact of a collision.

Fresh call for A329M crash barriers

There have been fresh calls for a crash barrier along the full length of the busy commuter route following the death of driver Paul Payne on Friday, February 12.

Tributes to man killed on A329M

Mr Payne’s car ploughed across the central reservation and into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

| View Comments (12)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 12 of 12

Fair enough Phyl. I'd be interested in some examples of new Bracknell barriers. They may be on roads I do not frequent. My example was the ones leading away from twin bridges down towards McDonalds. They were there before, although they were repositioned when they were refreshed. Bracknell, like nearly all councils, doesn't have any council owned motorways, and most dual carriageways in Bracknell are speed restricted anyway. Conversely, Wokingham doesn't have many dual carriageways.

I agree the A322 is safer, and mostly speed restricted as well. The part I was thinking of is the stretch from the Coral Reef to the Ascot turn. Outside rush hour, people drive up to 80 on this, although without slip roads, as you say.

I didn't mean to imply that the roads in Bracknell are equal to the motorway. I'm not denying that the A329M needs the barrier work doing that is being done. I was trying to say that I thought Bracknell had only done the work to comply with legislation, and there were sections that hadn't been done that perhaps needed to have barriers just like parts of the A3290 (I wasn't meaning to compare it to the A329M, which I believe now almost has barriers along it's length), so Bracknell wasn't a shining example of how to do things. I'm very much in favour of the barriers. They come not soon enough.

mavdo, Wokingham
01/03/2010 at 16:42

I would disagree with mavdo here. Many of the barriers in Bracknell are new and did not previously exist. I would also state that the A322 is not classed as a motorway and does not have slip roads to gain access, so does not have people joining existing traffic at speed, so therefore does not have the dangers that exist on the A329M. I travel the A329M every day and I would say that in comparison the A322 is safer, it is a shorter road divided up by traffic lights and roundabouts. There is no chance of travelling at excessive speeds during the rush hour. Unlike the A329M which people seem to think they have the right to drive on as if it was a three lane motorway.

Phyl
01/03/2010 at 12:53

I think the promised barrier installation is nearly complete. It looks to be going all the way to the Loddon Bridge P&R flyover. I think that's pretty much covered the most dangerous parts where accidents have previously occured, and covers all slip roads.

Re Marjo's comment about Bracknell - whilst new crash barriers were installed, they were only replacements of previous installations on roads where they are already mandatory. This replacement was mandated by European laws on the safety design of barriers. Wokingham also replaced crash barriers on the A329M, although they don't appear to have finished this job completely (see under the bridge at Earley).

A matching example for the remaining parts of the A329M without barriers in Bracknell would be parts of the A322 through the forest that also do not have barriers, but are again separated by several metres of grass and a few bushes. In this way, Bracknell have done no better job than Wokingham.

I think Wokingham have covered the most dangerous parts of the motorway with new barriers. Why the rest requires £4m, compared to the £500k ish needed for the current extension, I don't know. I'm not sure extending it any further is *that* necessary, but I'm happy to be convinced.

mavdo, Wokingham
01/03/2010 at 10:52

I am amazed that Wokingham cannot afford to put these barriers in place when I see that Bracknell has managed to install a number of new barriers on the dual carriages around the town in recent years. If Wokingham had budgeted correctly, they could have installed a few barriers each year, especially in the areas where slip roads feed on. It is the dangerous way that people push on from these slip roads that cause the accidents, the number of people that cut me up at the end of the slip roads is unbelievable, you either have to break or pull over. One of the main problems these day is the lack of policing, this allows the tailgaters, the undertakers and the speeders to get away with dangerous driving and continue in that way. Until something is done to address this, there will always be danger.

Marjo
28/02/2010 at 09:57

Would it not have made more sense set these these new traffic lights to peak period only working. I use the road around there a lot and its only two times a day when the traffic is heavy enough to justify the need for lights.

Aquarian, Lower Earley
28/02/2010 at 09:28

Croc - your comment about no advanced warning as a resident is well made. We could have done a better job through the media, local councillors and parish councils in letting people know that this was coming. We will try and be better next time.

Cllr Keith Baker
27/02/2010 at 18:38

"The developers of Winnersh Triangle Industrial Estate have paid for it all as part of the redevelopment planning application.?"

So thats why we have the massive lane bias in favor of the Winnersh Tangle compared to the A329/M4 under the new layout

A Wellwisher
26/02/2010 at 20:38

Ah, Cllr Baker beat me to it and confirmed my suspicions. What's annoying about it all is as a local resident I got no warning that these lights were going to appear. First I knew was when the poles appeared at the junctions.

Croc, Reading
26/02/2010 at 12:57

... and WBC are alredy doing a good, and swift, job on extending the current barrier northwards from where it previously stopped by the M4 junction. Even thought this work is very sadly too late for some, it probably isn't for others that will have accidents in the coming years.

I reserve judgment on whether it is good enough until I see how far they get. If it goes up to the Winnersh turning where the barriers restart over the Winnersh triangle viaduct, I think that'd be reasonable. If it stops by the M4 sliproads at the North extent, it wouldn't even cover the point of the recent accident.

I am, however, astonished at how many people are driving through these 50mph road works at 80mph. Are they trying to cause a fatality in the workers who are trying to install barriers to prevent fatalities?

mavdo, Wokingham
26/02/2010 at 12:55

Fair point about the lights at Winnersh Triangle, but I suspect very little of Wokingham's money went towards those. Looking at the planning section on the WBC website, it appears that the developer of the new office blocks at Winnersh Triangle had to upgrade the roundabouts and include lights as a condition for the planning permission. I understand they have longer term plans to upgrade the industrial estate, so WBC must have been concered at the additional traffic that could be generated over time and insisted on the lights being put in place. I still think they're overkill though.

Croc, Reading
26/02/2010 at 12:54

Topcatteresa - unfortunately WBC has not paid a penny for these traffic improvements so your idea is a non-starter. The developers of Winnersh Triangle Industrial Estate have paid for it all as part of the redevelopment planning application. The additional units in the industrial estate will bring significant additional traffic onto this area which is why the work had to be undertaken.

Cllr Keith Baker
26/02/2010 at 12:37

If WDC hadn't put up the pointless traffic lights at Winnersh Triangle then the money they spent on this could have been put towards the new crash barriers

Topcatteresa
26/02/2010 at 09:46

Book your advertisement yourself 24 hours a day. Save time book online. Book an Ad.

News

Ideas to source £4m A329M funds

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 12 of 12

Browse Sections

Interactive

Popular Sections

Get Shopping

getwokingham

Site navigation