Conference govt02::basingstoke

The holiday season is over.

All the kids are back at school so all the parents
are back at work.

There is another way out though, the footbridge over the M3,
now all I need is something small enough to fit on it, a bike
perhaps.

The other alternative is to park your car somewhere else.  What about
the Craft Centre car park, then you just have to walk to the car park
(which cannot take as long as queuing to get off the estate) and 
driver straight out onto the main road.

tp

>The holiday season is over.
>
>All the kids are back at school so all the parents
>are back at work.

    So whats changed. Kids have been at school before and parents at work.
    Why is this week worse than the weeks before christmas.
    
>There is another way out though, the footbridge over the M3,
    
    Thats my way home - don't start a jam there ;-)
    
    

>    So whats changed. Kids have been at school before and parents at work.
>    Why is this week worse than the weeks before christmas.
 

	"cause then people like me were taking odd days off for Christmas
	shopping

	Heather

And it looks like the Crescent is overcrowded.

If you arrive past 9 a.m. there are cars strewn all over the grass,
in the bus stop and along the driveway of the Crescent.  I would
have thought that the company involved should be in trouble with 
the council for this, :-) they've obviously not planned enough car parking
spaces.  

    PM&S in the Crescent forgot to get planning permission for the overflow
    carpark, and thus had to shut it. This has been escalated to "the
    highest level of management", which so far has achieved absolutely
    nothing (and why should it? It's PM&S's problem). If PM&S were under
    the same pressure to achieve appropriate results as other groups in
    Digital are, this would have been fixed ages ago.
    
    The root problem with the car park in the Crescent is "no-one's job is
    on the line because of it, and thus no-one cares".
    
    My opinion, naturally.
    
    Keith

As far as I know, they built an overflow car park without
asking for planning permission. The Council found out about
this, and stopped this, even though parking backs up.

I think it is probably Property Mgt & Services fault. They
should think before offending Local Councils.

Mark.

	Have you thought about this from another angle........

	This could be the scenario;

	The council allowed the building to be built with y amount of car spaces
	as developer said thats how many were needed for the occupancy, and it 
	generate x amount of car traffic.

	The council ensured this would be the case, by putting a ditch on the
	side of the car-park, and ensuring no link could be made between that
	and the adjoining land and for the bulding not to be used for a
	purpose other or greater than intended on the initial planning 
	permission.
 
	We leased the building and esily stayed within these numbers until now, 
	and are using more than these numbers.

	We build an overflow carpark to cater for the excess cars - on land that
	the council expressly did NOT want used for a car park because of the 
	resulting increase in traffic movements and conjestion that would occur.

	The council are now very %^&** off, we have done something without
	planning permission, which will cause the traffic movements to increase
	quite a lot above the orriginal numbers, on land they expressly didn't
	want used for this purpose - which is why they had the ditch there, and
	agreement that it would not be filled in.

	I don't see how any amount of escallation can help.

	Someone will have to go cap in and to the council, will have to come up 
	with some very innivotive bargaining, and even then the chances of
	swaying the council is probably under 15%.......................

	The problem is - we have more cars coming to the building than the
	developer allowed for in the orriginal planning permission.

	The people who use the building (me included) are the best people who 
	could think up ideas of how to reduce the number of cars.

	Any ideas anyone?

	Heather

    Get some enterprising farmer on the other side of the M3 to open up a
    field as a car park, he could get a set-aside subsidy from the EEC as
    well as charging for parking,  I for one would be willing to pay to use
    it 'cos it would save me about half an hour a day (it took me 15 mins
    to get from just south of the M3 to the cresent this morning). The
    council shouldn't object as it would reduce the number of cars coming
    under the M3, which either get stuck in the jam for the 'Crest'
    roundabout, or try to avoid this by going through Cliddesden, which is
    not build to take this ammount of traffic.
    
    M:

    
    The traffic is terrible now. At least you lucky swines at the Crescent
    have us from the CSC to let you out. That is, if we haven't been sitting
    practically outside our building for 20 minutes watching  ICL and
    the Cres being let out up ahead. Thus ensuring we go nowehere fast. Then
    perhaps we can be forgiven for not doing the nice thing! Do we need
    another roundabout??
    
    Other things that make you go Grrrrr. Black Dam roundabout. I hate it
    when people on the INSIDE lane decide they want the M3 exit and cut
    across the other two lanes to get there. Can they not just go round
    again?  Or if they are on the inside lane and cut everyone up to
    get to the turn off heading for the Crest. Do people here really not
    know how to use roundabouts? 
    
    And what a performance when the dual carriageway leading to the Reading
    road roundabout was temporarily reduced to one lane. All those people
    shooting up the outside lane, thinking 'huh, some mug will let me in up
    there, I'm not waiting my turn'. And then forcing their way in. I admit
    I had a smile or two when the lorries straddled both lanes to stop 'em.
    Hah.  
    
    Trouble is we all arrive at work with mad staring eyes and maniacal
    grins, and then have to be nice to customers!

>    And what a performance when the dual carriageway leading to the Reading
>    road roundabout was temporarily reduced to one lane. All those people
>    shooting up the outside lane, thinking 'huh, some mug will let me in up
>    there, I'm not waiting my turn'. And then forcing their way in. I admit
>    I had a smile or two when the lorries straddled both lanes to stop 'em.
>    Hah.  
 

	Well, I was in the outside lane, noticing a queue on the inside, it 
	wasn't until half way along the queue that their was the first sign
	saying the outside lane was shut - and no, you couldn't see it
	where the inside queue started.
	
	And no-one would let you in halfway down the queue, you had to go to the
	end and then squeeze in.

	So................for those of us that rarely go that way, we are out
	there because A) the signs were too late and B) no-one would let you
	in when you discovered this.

	Heather

>   And what a performance when the dual carriageway leading to the Reading
>   road roundabout was temporarily reduced to one lane. All those people
>   shooting up the outside lane, thinking 'huh, some mug will let me in up
>   there, I'm not waiting my turn'. And then forcing their way in. I admit
>   I had a smile or two when the lorries straddled both lanes to stop 'em.
>   Hah.  

So what?

You need no excuse for using available road. I regularly
go right to the end of the n+1 lane road, and move in at
the last minute. I'm just using the road that is available!

It is a natural decision, and obviously one that you take, to
queue up. Me, I don't fancy queueing very much, if there is no
reason to queue. The Lorries who straddle both lanes, are
obstructing the road, and should be prosecuted.

There, I've got that off my chest.

Mark.

>So what?

    It's selfish and causes bad drivers to get aggressive. Why not try to
    be a good driver? queue with everyone else, upset no-one.

    Andy

Has anyone contacted the council about Jays Close? Surely it is down to them
to survey the situation and look at improving things. Maybe temporary traffic lights
at the Golden Lion to ease traffic flow, or more escape routes from Jays Close.
And while I'm here, what I hate about Black Dam roundabout is when coming 
southbound towards the M3 and turing right onto the ring road, people in the left 
hand lane, drift to the middle lane and cut us in the right up! As for lane cliosures,
people jumping the queue doesn't bother me. If you keep calm and let one person
in what's the problem? Does it really add much to your travelling time?

One last thing - the grass verge opposite ICL should be bricked up to stop people
driving over it and pushing in up by the GL.

Thank you


	Ian

>	...queue with everyone else, upset no-one...

	If everyone joined the single lane queue at the Reading Road 
	roundabout, the resultant traffic back-up would extend onto the
	BlackDam roundabout causing even more upset and grief.

		p1

I don't think so. There's still as much traffic on the road and the right hand
lane queue never exceeds 3 or 4 cars from my experience. What does cause 
more congestion is the lorry that straddles both lanes and causes a queue in
the right hand lane. Anyway, by the look of things, it won't be too long before
the roadworks are finished and things improve.


	Ian

    Three years ago we found a radical solution to the Jays Close traffic
    problem...

    
    
    
    Heather, please don't take this personally, I would have let you in had
    I known.. and I have often let people in who obviously suddenly see
    the sign and think oops, I need to get over. 
    
    re .11  it's a natural decision for me not to let people like you
    push into the queue. So?
    

    The conjestion around Basingstoke lately is pretty bad, and I must
    admit I get very mad at people who cause more conjestion by not
    joining the queue, racing around roundabouts in the wrong lane, and its
    amazing how many cars these days go through a MOT without indicators...
    
    Jayne (who doesn't have to travel that far, thank god!)
    
    

When I come into the office there's hardly a soul on the roads and 
I can usually park right outside the nearest door to my desk.

Which is all very well, except that it would be nice to see 
daylight one morning.

Piers

Perhaps the reason for the increased traffic at 5.30-ish is that one of 
firms in Viable has started to let staff go at 5.30 rather than 5.00 or
6.00 - could anyone find out?

    
    
    
    you could always move to Colorado Springs, every road is two lanes and
    practically empty 8-)
    
    Course a speed limit of 65 combined with alcohol enhanced (hah!) fuel
    and a ton of emission stuff makes driving kind of tame!
    
    Simon

>Has anyone contacted the council about Jays Close? Surely it is down to them
>to survey the situation and look at improving things. Maybe temporary traffic 
>lights at the Golden Lion to ease traffic flow, or more escape routes from 
>Jays Close.


	The fact that Digital wants more cars/traffic movements than allowed
	in the orriginal plans is not the Councils problem, it's Digitals
	problem.

	If it is tackled from this perspective, then this might be an area for 
	bargaining.

	As Digital want to have more cars than was allowed for on the original
	planning permission, then they could offer the "planning gain" of 
	funding this, in exchange for the additional parking - this elliviating
	the traffic congestion arising from the additional cars.

	Heather

I don't understand. More parking will not mean less cars trying to get out of Jays 
Close at 5:30. The congestion will be the same. Traffic congestion caused by
volume of traffic and inadequate signals, road layouts, etc is the responsibility
of the council.

Ian

>I don't understand. More parking will not mean less cars trying to get out of Jays 
>Close at 5:30. The congestion will be the same. Traffic congestion caused by
>volume of traffic and inadequate signals, road layouts, etc is the responsibility
>of the council.

	Planning permission is given, with the understanding that the cars
	of people using the building will be in the car parking spaces provided.
	On this, they calculate the number of traffc movements, and if the 
	current infrastructure can handle this.

	Well, the Digital offices are attracting more than those planned for, 
	and the cars are being parked in "non parking" areas, and along the
	road, so Digital want to add additional parking.

	However, this additional usage is already overloading the infrastructure
	an additional parking area could attract even more.

	It is Digitals problem that they are attacting more than was planned for
	- not the council.

	If Digital want more than was planned for, they could possibly negotiate
	funding the planning gains to reduce the additional load they have 
	created.
	They may have annoyed the local council so much by doing it without
	asking for permission, that they may not get it anyway, but it's
	worth a stab.
		
	Heather

If I sneak in on the right hand lane, then I am still
queueing! I'm just queueing on the shorter queue.

Bit like when you are in the bank!

Mark.

    re .28
    
    Would you pick the shortest queue at the bank if there was no teller
    serving it?

The question is irrelevant.

Why would the second lane be there if it wasn't a proper
place to drive?

If I'm not meant to be in the second lane 50 yards before
it narrows, then why not narrow the lane 50 yards earlier.

Where does it stop?

It's a decision I make. I don't think I'm rude (I open
doors for people, and rarely swear!). I'm just taking
the shortest queue.

Mark.

    	Your arguments seem to ignore the fact then when you get to
    	the head of your shortest queue, you barge your way into the
    	other one.
    
    	Ian.

    Well said Ian!
    
    
    Jayne

But hang on a minute. The two queues merging into one is
a natural state of affairs. The merge has to happen some
time. Why queue for ages?

There is nothing actually wrong with moving (not barging!)
in when the lane narrows.

Mark.

    When I first started driving regularly on motorways, I thought exactly
    the same as Mark and would always stay in a lane that was closing until
    the last minute. I had two reasons for this, the lane is there to be
    used until it closes and I want to get to where I'm going as soon as I
    can. People see a sign saying "lane closing in 2 miles" and immediately 
    think "Eek, I must get in the open lane asap as no one will let me in
    further up". This is never the case where the traffic merges you can
    always filter in.
    
    Over the last year I have changed my thinking and taken the halfway
    house. Mainly because I realise how wound up motorists get if they see
    others "jumping" the queue. 
    
    The bottom line is that if there are 2 lanes going to one lane, then
    both lanes are open until one of them is closed.
    
    Roy (I appreciate this may not be a popular view)

	Ok, lets take the example of the A33, the bit from the M4 
	junction 11 to the filling station outside Dec Park.

	Why did the council make this bit of road dual-lane if they
	meant everyone to queue in the inside lane ????

		p1

re .33
    
>The two queues merging into one is a natural state of affairs.
    
    In respect of road lanes I think it is relevant to ask whether two
    lanes are merging into one or the left lane is ending or the right lane
    is ending. My impression is that the right lane is ending in which case
    you as a user of that lane have the obligation to merge in and should
    do so sufficiently in advance so as not to require someone to *let you
    in* but instead merge far enough back where the gaps between the cars
    allow safe merging. If it's bumper to bumper all the way in the left
    lane then maybe someone should be hassling the council (or whomever) for
    an extension of the dual carriageway.
    
    Personally I never let people push in (unless they have out of state
    plates but you don't get that clue in the UK).

There are two lanes there. They are intended to merge into one. If 
people evenly queue in both lanes, and at the merge point politely
alternate one car from each lane, traffic flows smoothly and no one's
temper is flared. That is the point in having two lanes! Why can't 
people look beyond their outrage at what they feel is poor etiquette 
and use some common sense!

It's the same situation as the Reading one from the M4 to DECpark. If
no one used the right lane and everyone queued up in the left lane,
the traffic backs way up and blocks the entire M4 roundabout causing
much more chaos for everyone! 

Ellen

	However, with the Basingstoke road works, you think you're overtaking,
	you're half way past the inside slow cars before you see the merge 
	sign, and by then, everyone in the inside is being very blind 
	pretending they don't see you, and won't let you in. 
	So instead of being able to merge easily, you have to have a battle of 
	wills with the inconsiderate people on the inside.

	Heather

  Re .21 (Simon)

> Perhaps the reason for the increased traffic at 5.30-ish is that one of 
> firms in Viable has started to let staff go at 5.30 rather than 5.00 or
> 6.00 - could anyone find out?

  How about if one of the firms that has two sites on Viables is demoralising
  its employees such that more and more of them are leaving at the official
  home time ?  There are certainly fewer cars in the CSC car park after 18:00
  than used to be there after 19:00 a year or two back (and yes, I tend to go
  home quite a bit earlier these days so there's no finger-pointing implied :-)

  Seriously though, the numbers involved may be small compared to the total
  population of the estate but we're not worried about traffic *volume*, just
  traffic *flow*.  For any fluid, the onset of turbulence isn't gradual : the
  initially smooth flow suffers degradation that increases up to a point then
  switches suddenly into a chaotic state, ie., the effect of the last increase
  in traffic is totally out of proportion to that expected in a linear system.

  The other point that has been largely overlooked is the impact of increasing
  the flow from the Crest roundabout towards the GL : as this has a gating
  effect on both the GL exit from Jays Close and the Viables roundabout exit,
  an increase in traffic down the Harrow Way acts as a *double* block to traffic
  attempting to leave the Viables estate.

  The basic fact is that "we" are attempting to stuff too many cars out of the
  two bottlenecks in too short a time.  The council can't do anything about it
  [even if they wanted to] so, as the 'sinks' can't be changed, it is up to
  the 'sources' to change - eg., stagger exit times, encourage the flexible
  working day, burn down a building or two :-)

  Frank

    
    
    
    Out of curiosity, how many cars does that 'illegal' car park at
    the Crescent hold?
    
    And I thought that the building was supposedly a 'desk-share'
    facility anyway because this is meant to be more efficient.  Are they 
    sitting 3 to a desk at the moment?  It doesn't matter how much of the car
    park was not planned for. The fact is that all available space at the 
    Crescent is full and over-spilling into the road. Maybe that is where
    the attention should be focused to ease the situation. 
       
    
    
    

>  It doesn't matter how much of the car park was not planned for.


	It does if you want any help or agreement from the council.


	Heather    
    

    
    The simply solution is to close down the CSC in Basingstoke and
    relocate eveyone to Warrington..... :-)
    
    Paul

    ha ha..
    
    j

    
    
    Gross.....
    
    
    Hils

    
    
    re: .43
    
    Without that bit of car park your parking problems would be even worse,
    and the damage is already done with the Council. I am still curious
    about why our showcase building seems to be busting at the seams. Is
    it because Snams and Wimgrove have moved in? (and did they bring their
    own desks?!?)
    
    I think Watterson has the best idea, as long as he relocates to 
    Aberdeen first...
    
    

>    re: .43
>    Without that bit of car park your parking problems would be even worse,
>    and the damage is already done with the Council. 

	They are worse, we can't use that bit becuase of the damage done with 
	the council.

>   I am still curious about why our showcase building seems to be busting at 
>    the seams. Is it because Snams and Wimgrove have moved in? (and did they 
>    bring their own desks?!?)
 
	It is not our buliding, it is leased.

	When the orriginal occupancy/car parking was thought out, it was not on
	a flexible/desk sharing bases.

	So, I would assume that the number of people in the building at one time
	is higher than anticipated, so precipitating the current problems.

	Heather

    Leased or not, it's still Digital's UK showcase building.
    
    Dave

>    Leased or not, it's still Digital's UK showcase building.
 
	Is the building the showcase, or the activities within.

	The building was built to a companies spec who wanted to sell/lease,
	so we had no say in the design of the building.

	When it was re-built, it had to be done virtually to the original
	spec, for insurance/planning reasons.

	So, what is ours to showcase - surely only the people and methods
	of working (and our hardware/infrastructure/software)?

	Heather

    
    
    
    > When the orriginal occupancy/car parking was thought out, it
    > was not on a flexible/desk sharing bases.
    
    
    But in 1991 - after the re-build - it was hailed as an example of
    an efficient office.  The 'New Working Practices' were to include
    desk-sharing. Surely this would have taken into account car parking
    space?  
    
    And whether it is leased or not it is a Digital building whilst the
    Company is paying rent on it.
      
    

    
    
>    But in 1991 - after the re-build - it was hailed as an example of
>    an efficient office.  The 'New Working Practices' were to include
>    desk-sharing. Surely this would have taken into account car parking
>    space?  
 
	The re-build could only do what was there before.

	The new ways of working don't seem to have taken into account of the 
	car-park limitations - otherwise there wouldn't be the problem that
	there is.
   
>    And whether it is leased or not it is a Digital building whilst the
>    Company is paying rent on it.
 
	I said this in the context of the building being designed by us for
	our new practices - well it wasn't, "cause we didn't design or build
	it.   

    I thought that it wasn't just a simple re-build, as it didn't match the
    fire regulations.
    
    I don't quite understand you saying that the building was not designed
    for "New Pratices", I didn't think you had to have a specialally designed
    building to accomodate desk sharing. You can put a desk in a shed and
    two people can share it quite comfortabley.
    
    Jayne
    
    

>    I thought that it wasn't just a simple re-build, as it didn't match the
>    fire regulations.
 
	If it didn't match fire regs, it wouldn't have been passed.

	.......I believe extra fire-breaks were put in the roof........
   
>    I don't quite understand you saying that the building was not designed
>    for "New Pratices", I didn't think you had to have a specialally designed
>    building to accomodate desk sharing. You can put a desk in a shed and
>    two people can share it quite comfortabley.
 
	New practices and desk-sharing are not the same thing  (honest)

	Intelligent buildings can be built to spec to accomodate new working
	practices, however it is possible to do much to old buildings.

	If the new practices were taken into consideration when the building and
	parking wre designed, we wouldn't have these problems now.

	Heather		

    
    
    if it matched fire regulations....     why did it burn down??
    
    

    I thought it was built differently to be an "intelligent building".
    Part of that was fitting things like a fibre optic cable throughout the
    building (although at times I wonder why we bothered).
    
    Keith

    
    
>    if it matched fire regulations....     why did it burn down??
 

	Passing fire regs dosen't mean it won't burn down

	It means it is less likely, and if it does happen, people can get
	out quickly with no loss of life.

	Heather

    
    
    fire regulations also encompass the structure of the building - 
    i.e. if there IS a fire, how quickly can it spread, positioning
    of sprinklers etc. If I remember correctly, the fire spread
    rather quickly and even took the fire brigade by surprise.
    
    And the fact that everyone got out is thanks to Digital's fire
    evacuation procedures.
     

>    fire regulations also encompass the structure of the building - 
>    i.e. if there IS a fire, how quickly can it spread, positioning
>    of sprinklers etc. If I remember correctly, the fire spread
>    rather quickly and even took the fire brigade by surprise.
>    
>    And the fact that everyone got out is thanks to Digital's fire
>    evacuation procedures.
 

	They also cover the number and location of fire exits, the minimum
	width of the main routes to the fire exits,(I've seen them here 
	measuring the distance between the screens and the walls) the clear 
	sign-posting of fire exits, the use of fire doors/exits - ie, don't 
	prop them open or lock them, the testing of fire alarms.....etc....   

	Heather

Isn't this a pointless discussion? The problem is the traffic caused by excess
vehicles in and around the Crescent, not the fact that it met/didn't meet
fire regulations. When I leave Viables, there aren't many cars parked on the road
by the Crescent, it's having to let people out and the roundabout at the end that 
cause the problem.

In the long term, I agree. Relocate the CSC somewhere, just make sure it's
not the same place Watty is!


	Ian

    
    
    Re:58
    
    
    Yes, I think most people are aware of the the basics of fire
    regulations, but thanks for adding that. It doesn't hurt
    to have a refresher now and then. 
    
    And yes Ian, I agree this note has got a bit ratholed! 
    
    

    woops...
    
    Sorry, that last one was meant to relate to .59!
    
    

    
    Panic alert!  Panic alert!
    
    That's not (gulp) another company those builders are laying foundations
    for by ICL is it???  
    
    Oh gawd, the traffic will be humungous if that's the case. Is ICL 
    extending their car park or is it something more sinister......??
    
    julia
    

    
    RE: .63
    
    Julia,perhaps someone has taken the  entrepreneurial initiative
    and  decided  to build a  multi-storey car park?- Complete with  
    Bar/Games arcade/McDonalds/Fax & phone facilities  etc to while
    away the time until the Q dies down !!   ;-)
    
    Sandie../                             

.64

You just couldn't resist it, could you Tony? Dropping the line in casually that
you are in Seattle whilst the rest of us live in this eternal nightmare! :-)

As for the car pool scheme they operate this in quite a few places. When I was
in Boston (if Tony can plug so can I) they operate this scheme on most of the
routes going into the city. However, you then get to a flyover that has several
feed ins from at least two major routes that then go into two lanes.

Net result - car share (pool) users get to the traffic chaos faster than 
everyone else. So much for the American idea......

Gary

    Ah but Gary, at least I didn't use my decwest account and enter the
    note at a time which would be after hours in the UK. That's real
    pose-value 8*)
    
    

    
    ICL are expanding their car park - they did apply for planning
    permission too  !!!!!!!!!
    

        So getting planning permission for a road that exits into
        the apex of a blind bend is no problem then?
        
        Ian.

    
    
    I thought they were building another exit from Viables straight
    onto the M3. Drastic but effective way to reduce traffic...
    
    By the way, I have found that a lot of the previous traffics problems
    around town in the morning have decreased. In fact on several occasions
    I have sailed right through to the Crest (or whatever it's called this
    week) roundabout. Then we hit the que trying to get IN to Viables.
    
    

    I've noticed that the traffic along Hatchwarren Lane towards Viables
    roundabout is much lighter in the mornings lately.
    
    Roy

    Re .last couple
    
    The recession's starting to bite in basingstoke then....
    
    
    When I was in Wigan the other day (Seatle, Boston pah !!), there were
    loads of vacancies in the job centre..... :-)
    
    Paul