Northern Bypass NBP Part 4!
- Activities & Social
- Civic & Community
- Crime & Safety
- Give & Lend
- Local Politics
- Lost & Found
A12A14Greater IpswichHenley RoadInrixInternal ReviewIpswich Garden SuburbNBPNBP part 4Northern BypassNorthern FringeNorthern Relief RouteNorthern RoadNorthern RouteOrwell BridgeOrwell Bridge ClosureTen-TTraffic Jams
- 2 weeks, 5 days ago #3440
I'm really quite cross now, so watch out!2 weeks, 4 days ago #3452
This is painful to see. The haul road is almost adequate for a single carriageway northern road. I cannot see why the future ducting has such spacing when the current one does not.
Looking at the Working Width you could adequately install a dual carriageway Northern Bypass with the cables installed (deep in modular trunking) either on the sides of the road or central reservation. This ultimately means at some time in the future roadworks would need to be undertaken for upgrades or replacements but a Northern Bypass would need maintenance just like the Orwell Bridge and road in general due anyway. Optic fibres, underground electric cabling and even gas/water pipes could also be installed beside the carriageways.
How can the villagers complain North of Ipswich regarding plans for a Northern Bypass when the countryside will need to be ripped open for this?2 weeks, 4 days ago #3454
You are right Watchful. There will be rat runs through North West Ipswich and Labour have been politically targeting the area for over a year – this is due to NW Ipswich being outside the Ipswich constituency. They have promised the residents a road connecting Henley Road to A14 to avoid this problem they know will happen… but until Labour can take control of SCC it is a pipe dream. SCC doesn’t approve of this road and as far as I understand aren’t interested in getting it built. I am not sure if the IBC administration/Ipswich Labour are even serious… perhaps spin to trick NW Ipswich residents in not objecting to the Garden Suburb?
Not good for air quality.2 weeks, 4 days ago #3459
- New Topics: 0
- Total Replies: 13
- Contributions: 13
If any are waiting for Gummer to help your wasting your hopes. Hes up with the rest of the upper class,he only looks after his own kind, his only interest in ordinary people is their votes and no more. In a few years time for serving his mates well, they will probably push for him to get a title. Lord Orwell comes to mind, his father got Lord Stour.2 weeks, 3 days ago #3482
Sorry to disagree with Michael B not Lord Stuor — it should be and is Lord Deben — he has little time for the people of Ipswich and their problems — so the further away the better2 weeks, 2 days ago #3500
Northern Bypass called for again!
Oh really? Are they kidding, when have traffic lights ever really solved a traffic problem. This road is the main A12 A14 link, is bad enough its got lights at Martlesham P&R, it should not have more. This development is just another reason an Ipswich Northern Bypass is needed urgently, and it would make perfect sense if it also bypassed this whole area as well… !
The northern bypass really remains one of Suffolk’s elephants in the room doesn’t it? Constantly tinkering around the edges at great cost, such as the WDC, in order to avoid building this road. And whilst these changes to the A12 are welcome, necessary and long overdue, traffic lights aside, we really need a road to take traffic heading northsouth on the A12 from Martlesham away from this area.
paul e.2 weeks, 2 days ago #3502
the prospect of all those extra homes is horrific, we simply do not have the infrastructure, nothing more should built until a fully agreed and costed plan is in place with clear timescale for all roads, homes and business development in the region. It just makes you think SCC don’t have the faintest idea how to plan for all this inevitable (and welcome) development. They are not fit for purpose..
I'm really quite cross now, so watch out!2 weeks, 2 days ago #3503
It makes you wonder really, with the Northern Bypass people have been demanding it for decades… and now there is significant planned development in the immediate South East Suffolk area (Northern Fringe/Ipswich Garden Suburb, town centre housing increases, Adastral Park housing, expansion around Kesgrave/Foxhall Road, Felixstowe Docks expansion and various housing plots such as tooks bakery site) yet it seems the Northern Bypass is not a priority and a new Upper Orwell Crossing bridge just south of the town centre is… yet it doesn’t support the vast majority of these developments without such traffic going through other parts of Ipswich.
On top of this, there is the Sproughton Sugar Beet factory site, developments around the Stowmarket area, developments around Woodbridge area and the planned development of the land near Futura Park (“Alston Park“) – including the what-if scenario of a fully occupied Ransomes Europark and fully occupied Futura Park phase 3.
Furthermore, you have the new out-of-town retail developments to the East (Martlesham/Martlesham Heath – already a major problem) and North West (much of which appears a relocation of stores from Suffolk Retail Park near the town centre).
Vanity project bridge when we really need the Northern Bypass! Instead, the proposals to allowing just one major housing development is to install several sets of traffic lights… great! Is this fixing the problem, reducing the problem or just desperately trying to force people off the roads? The latter I think.2 weeks, 2 days ago #3504
The post’s of M Prime and paul e. have once again brought up some interesting points of view — if the SCC feel the need for more traffic lights I know just the place to put them, but I must say it would cause great pain to all that serve on the SCC.
As I have said before the A14 slip road on the Asda/Bury roundabout all the way down the Norwich road (A1156) — one have traffic backing up most of the day, because of traffic lights until one reach the Valley road/Chevallier round about, quickly clears here WHY no dam traffic lights — and this is happening all over Ipswich.
After 18 months of our debating on streetlife arguing for the need of a Northern Bypass, I think it is only fair to say that our contribution more than helped Ben Gummer and the SCC to start squirming in their seats, (I do know that the SCC was monitoring our debate on streetlife at this time as were some councilors on the IBC) they are now in the position that the only way out is to give Ipswich what it needs a NBP — but once again they are using delaying tactics — Ben Gummer has said he can not ask Government for money to build a NBP until he have a plan to offer them — the SCC has thrown a spanner into the works by offering three routes — another ploy to delay? — the inner corridor from Martlesham to Claydon without a doubt is the one that would help Ipswich to expand — it would also help Felixstowe as well with what they have in mind for expansion of their container port — they already cope with the biggest container ship in the world now a second one is on the way the only port in England that can do so — good for Felixstowe Good for England — they are reclaiming part of the Orwell to receive an extra 20.000 containers which have all got to be delivered by road — (Our Orwell) — who is paying for this the owners of the container port, Chinese? could not the owners be persuaded to contribute towards the cost of a NBP — could not the SCC get on with the job of a NBP — the Northern Fringe big build is on the way — just for once in your miserable lives think of Ipswich and what you can do for us —2 weeks, 2 days ago #3507
Ipswich Ltd thanks for giving us this platform to put our case forward — but I feel that it do lack the publication of the wider audience — somehow we/you have got to achieve this — and if possible make it more like streetlife — not so complicated — this is not a criticism of what you have achieved so far — but a worry that more people do not know about it —
message to David L yes mate old Watchfull is still on the Case2 weeks, 2 days ago #3514
Mart’s post of about three and a half hours ago I totally agree with — No NBP — No Northern fringe big build — anyone with sense can see what will happen if one come into being and not the other — why can they not be done together or not at all
Some way or the other we have got to change the thinking of the SCC and the IBC
A UNITARY AUTHORITY IS NEEDED FAST2 weeks, 2 days ago #3517
I couldn’t agree more Watchfull, an Unitary Authority must go ahead before 2 years are up on leaving the EU.2 weeks, 2 days ago #3532
Watchfull, I am behind the scenes tampering with a few options – perhaps moving IPSWI onto a different platform or changing the theme…
Its a new company year in which IPSWI will be promoted. I just don’t want to do this to find a lot of people hate or struggle to use the site. You can guarantee once all the people have been and gone they won’t come back. I don’t want to state a deadline but I am hoping to roll this out in the medium term (relative to a year).
I truly appreciate everyones’ patience with getting to use the current site and contributing content to it. As it is local election time it has gone a bit quiet in certain areas such as the Northern Bypass.
Also looking for options regarding Northern Bypass, Upper Orwell Crossings (can the project be stopped?), Cornhill Redevelopment (can this be stopped too?), Unitary Authority and wider Ipswich improvements. I am also still interested in setting up a democratic group for Ipswich. There just isn’t enough hours in the day!!2 weeks, 1 day ago #3533
if its any help regarding forum platforms, I’ve got the hang of this now sort of, but it’s still lacking in features a lot of other have. Some maybe just turned off but there’s no search, you can’t click to go to last unread post, its just not easy to find the stuff you have contributed to etc. Its probably only because so few are using it that I can find anything. If it did get busy it would be impossible I suspect.
Anyway, almost on topic, I see Essex/Kent are going to get a tunnel!
I'm really quite cross now, so watch out!2 weeks, 1 day ago #3534
Ipswich Ltd Please do not take my remarks as a criticism of this site — without what you have done I think the NBP part 4 would have been dead in the water by now — it is just me — all I truly want is for more people to be able to join in — regards setting up a democratic group for Ipswich sounds good to me — (Also looking at options regarding —– I am a bit confused in what you are saying) put that down to old age — but a Unitary Authority is what Ipswich needs — I also know what you mean by not enough hours in the day2 weeks, 1 day ago #3536
I wanted the site to be less standard forum (although for all intents and purposes it is exactly what it is) and more bespoke. This either means developing something special – don’t have the time unfortunately with the other workload – or maybe settling for a generic forum script such as XenForo.
The search is a bit naff and as its early days I have disabled the form in many areas. I plan to stick elasticsearch or similar into providing quite a powerful search platform for the entire site. I am considering to extend this over all our websites and perhaps create an Ipswich-specific search engine with third party websites included. Even I won’t stop using Google, but might be handy when you specifically know the search query relates to Ipswich and when Google is misbehaving and throwing up all sorts of irrelevant results. Of course, the search site would likely to be found in Google.
This platform we are currently using hasn’t been as simple as anticipated – I am considering “Community” forum section with something like XenForo and other scripts to make up Events, News etc. but to fit seamlessly in with design across the site. Ultimately, the user experience/user friendliness needs to be much improved. Whether or not we can engage a relatively large percentage of Ipswich and local area residents into discussion is one thing (10% of borough population registered with half logging in once a month would be a good target. Streetlife was good but despite the dedication of the few it still had a limited reach and small number of frequent posters although local government got involved) but promoting it shouldn’t be too tricky overall (you are never going to be able to force people into being interested, picking up those outgoing in respect of wanting to get involved in their community should be reasonably cost-effective and achievable). I want to link this with the democratic group. I want the site to be good for the Greater Ipswich area but to be more than people venting off anger or dislike.
The democratic group is much more needed than ever. The few peoples opinions, needs and desires are not important. The mass persons opinions, needs and desires can also be overruled (such as with the Northern Bypass – people are very vocal about it now!) by politicians who discount it as being a few very vocal negative people who will have to lose (rough quote of Ben Gummer) – having an organised group together could sway the politicians… there are many issues this will help including Ipswich Town Centre! Primarily, will be important for a Unitary Authority and Northern Bypass. The idea behind IPSWI would be local people can register/login to communicate on local issues but at the same time can decide to join the democratic group if they wish.
The difficult part is we need to set up a democratic group ideally first before approaching all these other issues listed. I am drafting marketing materials on various local issues (awaiting after the local elections though)… the Cornhill Redevelopment and Upper Orwell Crossings are two vanity projects that have serious upset the public in recent weeks and months. More wasted money “investment” when the rest of the town and services are struggling. I am hoping to tap into some of that resentment for our local politicians, system and circumstances….2 weeks ago #3550
Just had — (Labour Today — News from Labour in Ipswich) — put through my letter box
Big Black headline — GRIDLOCK IPSWICH
It’s Time To Get Our
Traffic Moving Again
But not one mention of our need for a NBP — Have written them a lengthly E-Mail — have asked them to acknowledge — and also ask them can I publish their reply to this debate —
Wait and see shall we —
Sent to = ipswich-labour.org.uk — was told that this page could not be found
Resent to = [email protected]2 weeks ago #3551
Labour is stuck in their Tory-bashing ways. The following video of theirs has too much emphasis on the Conservatives.
Reasons why you should NOT vote Labour for Suffolk. Video is ended with the councillor saying Labour would make Suffolk… safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous. The alternative was the fear mongering of giving people the option of leaving it to the Conservatives who will go on cutting, cuts to care.
I don’t like this approach. A rival political party is treated like the evil enemy rather than just an inferior alternative. I don’t agree with many Tory policies and I have to say locally the Suffolk Conservatives are doing badly for the county and especially Ipswich. I also didn’t think too much of their emphasis points with prosperity being last in priority. If the cuts are screwing us all over then surely their antidote of a solution would be prosperity. I understand the safer being directly linked to fire services cuts which are a concern. Greener? Taking votes from the Greens perhaps. Healthier? A healthier Suffolk? This is pathetic, I think they meant health-ier as in improved health services and care services, the former is well outside the scope of county councillors! The linked up hospital scheme for Ipswich isn’t improving anyone’s health.
Labour has a lot of bullsh!t they serve up, the same councillor in another video claimed that they (local branch, Ipswich Labour) would have taken action on foreign agency workers if the EU referendum was a remain vote. Not much chance of poorly-paid local people being able to influence national policy at the national group… but even less chance of Labour holding power of Government anytime soon.
Back to your post watchfull! Well, “Gridlock Ipswich“… again? Every newsletter seems to have contained the same issues text spun to be fresh… they might not have majority control but with elected councillors with no results or significant effort into reaching such goals, you have to wonder why. They are simply hitting on issues to win votes. Labour has really lost its way. If they want to win a majority in central government or local county-level government they need to realise people hate this type of politics.
MPs are a different kettle of fish, but the concept behind councillors are local people doing good in their communities… working a normal job but for a small remuneration taking on other limited duties to improve their local elected areas. Thus why resort to these lengths to get votes? Surely should be Local Resident standing for issues that s/he is wanting to change. If their peers etc. see that person of good standing and agree with the issues s/he wants to fix, will vote for them in local elections. Nothing complicated… no central government seat issues.
I will never vote for Labour again until they can sort themselves out. I am surprised no candidates are going against the Cornhill Redevelopment or Upper Orwell Crossings and pushing for a Northern Bypass… surely would be popular to gain votes (especially in relevant areas). Perhaps more of registering for ballot papers and seeing if by chance you get votes… a major shame.1 week, 6 days ago #3557
Ipswich Labour Group will play on Conservative-led Suffolk County Council’s controversial Travel Ipswich scheme. IBC even financially contributed to the scheme in part and I am sure the Labour county councillors voted (at least in part) for it. Reviewing the circumstances comparing to previous Labour administrations both locally and centrally… I don’t doubt for one second that Labour would have done almost exactly the same.
The same “walk or cycle” focused rhetoric. The RTPI bus information screens and UTMC traffic light system would have been a centrally-pushed gravy train for the private sector suppliers, same with the map totems, so these would have gone ahead under Labour. Labour might have introduced more cycling to the town. I doubt they would have kept the roundabout.
The result would have been the same lack of investment into the road infrastructure – just cosmetic touches like removing pedestrian safety guard fencing barriers – and ultimately more congestion.
A Northern Bypass is actually a sneaky cheat… a shortcut to fixing the road infrastructure problem. The way the town has grown around the medieval town layout it is impossible to modify (like-for-like on costings). Reducing traffic off the road by 30% through a Northern Bypass saves much of the problem. Buying up real estate to demolish to lay new town centre roads and demolishing housing on the outskirts to build better higher capacity roads would be a really expensive and prohibitive task.
5 years ago Labour claimed the fuel duty increase would make petrol cost 150p a litre. Prices are nowhere near that today. On top of that there is the constant confusion, do they want everyone using public transport (or cycling everywhere) or families not being worst off by cost of fuel? The answer depends what side of the election it is.1 week, 6 days ago #3559
Found an interesting piece on Ben Gummer… in 2010 he had the following in his political party newsletter…
Unless of course, if Infrastructure is the “Wet Dock Crossing” (Upper Orwell Crossing) and Expansion is Enterprise Island. So why has Ben Gummer been quiet about the Northern Fringe and not demanded a Northern Bypass before building starts?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.