Reading (Berkshire)

 

Reading in Berkshire - a town struggling with its historical road network, made consistently worse by a Council who don't have a clue as to how to run a housing estate, let alone a town.  Although this webpage is about Reading, it will inevitably tend to focus on its traffic and roads...as that is what seriously blights it as a place in which to live and work.

 

As someone who has suffered this town (Reading) for many years, I feel I have a right to state the obvious - that Reading Borough Council is just totally incompetent.  I don't mean 'a bit' as with most councils, I mean that it literally cannot do anything right...anything.  I used to think it was deliberate - policies created solely to punish Reading's car drivers (especially) and to create as much chaos as is possible.  I really did think that, and I apologise for it.  It slowly dawned on me that Reading Borough Council is simply totally inept.  There's nothing malicious about the Councillors, they're just thick.  There's no underhandedness from the people employed to head the departments, no intent, no hatred of car drivers - it's just that they haven't a clue as to how to do their job.  Now, I offer, as proof of this, the fact that there remains not a single junction, not a single light-phasing, not a scheme - anywhere - which has improved traffic flow...not one!  EVERYTHING they do makes the traffic worse.  Now you may start to understand why I initially thought that it was deliberate - surely, no one can be this stupid as to make traffic worse with every junction they change, every roundabout removed, every re-phasing of signals, every white line painted.  My initial thought that it was deliberate is easily defended.  But, as I said, I was wrong - they just don't know what they're doing.  Look at Labour's government as a great example.  It's not that Rachel Reeves wants to ruin the economy, it's just that as a Chancellor she is completely out of her depth.  Though, to be fair, she would be out of her depth taking care of a petty cash tin.

 

My point is that the Labour government is full of councillors - that's their level of ability, no more able than their level (as councillors).  I'm not demeaning councillors everywhere; I'm sure that there are intelligent and able ones - it's just that I've never met one.  My experience of them is that they haven't a clue what they're doing.  Primarily, this is because they aren't in the job as a result of their expertise in town planning, it's because they are politically active.  And that should disqualify anyone from being a councillor!  The average councillor has no more idea about a roundabout junction than a welder does.  This is why they employ 'experts' to advise them.  But in large part, the advisers tell them what they want to hear.  That must be the case, as surely they can't be as stupid as the councillors are???

 

A classic example played out in Reading in 2006.  Some bright spark had the idea of making our ring road (the Inner Distribution Road - IDR) one-way.  This, on its own, isn't a bad idea, and surely up for debate.  However, when Reading approached a planning company, they advised that it be counter-clockwise.  Now, this is not good for one very good reason.  In Britain, we drive on the left...this is why roundabouts ONLY go clockwise.  It doesn't matter how small or big the roundabout is, because we drive on the left, it HAS to be clockwise.  So a one-way ring road should also go clockwise.  The reason is very simple; traffic joining it simply merges on.  The traffic already on the roundabout or ring road doesn't have to stop to let other vehicles on - you simply have a merge lane.  HOWEVER, if you operate your one-way ring road counter-clockwise, then it interferes with other traffic at EVERY point...simply because, if you want to leave the ring road and join a two-way road (remembering that we drive on the left), you would cross the traffic joining it.  Of course, it's necessary to have junctions for the traffic within the ring (the town centre) to join the ring road, and in such circumstances it will require a junction.  By making it counter-clockwise and no roundabouts, the planners had no less than 21 sets of traffic signals at 10 junctions!!!  It was to cost £14.2 million.  It was Councillor John Howarth who championed the crazy scheme, but he was aided and abetted by what was laughingly Reading's 'Transport strategy manager', Councillor Pat Baxter - living proof that giving someone a title doesn't make them suitable for the job.

 

As we just said, traffic within the town centre would interfere with traffic on the ring road if it goes clockwise, so junctions are still necessary.  But roundabouts cure this (whether it's clockwise or counter-clockwise).  It comes down to how many joining roads you have.  If, for example, you only have two roads which enter and leave the centre of the ring (the town centre) then a clockwise system is essential.  However, the larger the ring becomes, crossing traffic is indeed less of an issue, for the very reason we just said, that roundabouts can cure it.  BUT, Reading's IDR has more roads on the outer of the ring than it does on the inner, and the IDR isn't actually large at all (not like very many other towns and cities) and Reading's planners intended to use signals, NOT roundabouts - thereby certainly halting traffic, whereas roundabouts don't necessarily do that.  As the idea was to have a free-flowing IDR, surely the very idea of putting in many, many more traffic signals is just pathetically insane?

 

So, to sum up, it would have been better to have the one-way ring road clockwise AND to use roundabouts as junctions, not signals.  Instead, Reading Borough Council wanted to do the opposite - counter-clockwise with signals.  It may well have made Reading's town centre traffic worse than it already was!  The problem with one-way ring roads is that you could find that your destination is only half a mile away...in the reverse direction, so you have to go all the way around the ring road to get to it, or cut through the centre - thereby nullifying the idea of the ring road.

Copyright: BerkshireLive

 

The scheme was therefore ill-conceived and quite mad.  But it wasn't Reading Borough Council who thought counter-clockwise would be better, it was their advisers - paid handsomely!  The idea was bollocks, basically.  Fortunately, Reading Borough Council dropped the idea after High Court action by Wokingham District Council, a hung Council after local elections, and a poll showing 91% were against it...though Reading Borough Council has never been keen to  listen to the opinions of its people!

 

Which leads us nicely on to Reading's A33 road out of Reading to the M4.  Even I know that in order to evacuate something, it is imperative to design a system which does that quickly and efficiently.  Why would you put obstacles in a sewerage system, for example?  A plumber knows that in order for waste matter to get away swiftly, you design the drain pipes to be unimpeded - totally.  You design something to get away as easily as possible, whether that's poo, or traffic out of a town centre.  So when Reading Borough Council finally connected up the 'ski jump' and the IDR to the new A33, you would have thought that they would have done so with some level of competence.  But no.  First of all, and most bizarre, the junction of Castle Street on the IDR doesn't allow traffic to get to the IDR towards the M4.  The two aren't connected!!!  It's difficult to overstate this.  It means that if you leave the town centre at one of its busiest junctions (Castle Street roundabout) there is no way of getting to the A33 and the M4 unless you double back on yourself.  Only locals know how to do this, a tourist driver or delivering truck driver wouldn't have a clue.  Why would you want a large truck adding to the traffic?  Isn't it better to get it out of the town efficiently?

 

But then Reading's planners went and did something even worse, they added 15 sets of traffic signals...so traffic cannot flow out of Reading to the M4, it continually gets held up.  This is in addition to two roundabouts.  Some of the 15 signal sets are pedestrian crossings - which could have been tunnels or bridges, but no.  Also, they removed a perfectly functioning roundabout at the junction of the A33 and Rose Kiln Lane and installed a complex set of signals.  They have since, with mind-numbing incompetence, fiddled with it in their zeal to add bus lanes which don't ever get used.  A roundabout doesn't necessarily hold up traffic, but a set of signals definitely does.  The A33 is just a mess, but a visual testament to Reading Borough Council's total incompetence at managing traffic. Twice, Reading has applied for and secured government funding to create bus lanes along the A33 which are just not needed and aren't used.  You could place an egg in the bus lane and it would still be there a month later!  Bus drivers prefer the traffic lanes for reasons I am not aware of.  And at Imperial Way, they don't want to be held up by a set of signals, so they just leave the bus lane and join the rest of the traffic and turn left!  They literally by-pass the signals.  It's quite bizarre to watch.

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Bus drivers will only use the lane and the signals if the traffic is backed up.  Which leads us nicely to a salient point.

Why install bus lanes?...because the traffic is bad.

Why is the traffic bad?...because the junction is poorly designed/too much traffic.

As with Shinfield Road/Hartland Road, Reading Borough Council has a history of ballsing up junctions and creating congestion...which then they say needs a bus lane...because the junction is congested!!!  They created it!  If they had left it alone or managed it better, there might not be congestion in the first place.  Norcot Road roundabout in Tilehurst is a good example.  Reading Borough Council don't seem interested in solving the congestion here, and because their buses got held up, they removed one eastbound bus lane to facilitate a westbound one!  They also left in place the bus stop opposite Pangbourne Street which holds up traffic trying to get out of Grovelands Road.  They had the opportunity to relocate the bus stop further down the road a few metres where the road is wide enough for traffic to get around the stationary bus...but no!  Norcot Road roundabout will just get worse (as Reading grows due to immigration and more drivers join Reading's roads) to the point that the bus lane will be redundant, as the traffic already backs up to Grovelands Road...which means that buses are held up along with everyone else on Oxford Road.

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Look in the distance and you'll see that it is a stationary bus at the bus stop which yet again is holding up the traffic.  Yes, the signals are at red, but traffic cannot go anywhere, anyway, including the delivery truck, as it can't pass the bus!  All it takes is a little thought - to move the bus stop 100 metres further along so that traffic can pass.  Can you see half of the grey car (with white wheels) which has passed the signals but can't go anywhere?  This is because the traffic cannot pass the bus - the stop is too close to the junction.  You can see that the bus is stopped, as the camber of the road is leaning the bus to the kerb.  The amusing thing is, buses hold up traffic...which holds up buses.  Reading Borough Council has a history of doing this.  They take bus lay-bys away, forcing traffic to queue behind a stationary bus, which simply creates congestion which holds up buses half a mile back up the road.  This issue hasn't crossed their tiny minds.

 

At Norcot Road's junction with Romany Lane, they withdrew a perfect layby bus stop (where the lone white car is), and bizarrely placed it on a blind right-hand bend.  You can see it in the photo below on the far right.  There have been a number of accidents, since.  But Reading Borough Council don't care.

Copyright: GoogleMaps

For the second photo, I have used an aerial shot, as it perfectly shows a car driver taking the plunge and attempting an overtake of the stationary bus on a blind bend.  It's either that or wait - and the wait can be considerable as this bus stop is well-used.  A Councillor explained to me that they felt the need to relocate the stop as drivers don't let buses out.  We all know that bus drivers FORCE their way out.  It doesn't matter if there is traffic or not!  A bus driver waiting for a break in the traffic flow must be an oxymoron.

 

Reading has a poor roads system which is governed by people like Councillor John Ennis.  Wow, just wow.  He is 'Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport'.  The trouble is, and you're probably ahead of me, that he knows nothing about either subject.  I know, I've met him.  He doesn't even know of the crazy road signs still up, showing where Reading Football Club is, he doesn't know that there is a set of traffic signals which do NOTHING other than turn red and hold up traffic*, and he most certainly doesn't know that "Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect."  That line doesn't come from me, it comes direct from New Scientist in an article supporting man-made climate change...but John Ellis doesn't know it, he thinks it's carbon dioxide (CO2), or 'carbon' as morons like to say, wrongly.  I have no doubt at all that he doesn't grasp what the 'tropospheric hotspot' is, or how warm the Arctic was in the 1930s, or that the majority of the Meteorological Office's weather data is seen as junk by the World Meteorological Organisation.  So what he knows about climate change is probably on a par with the average 12 year-old.  What's his title again?  As I said, wow!

 

*Oh, yes, that set of signals which has been in place for decades and does NOTHING at all except to needlessly hold up traffic...

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Yes, when I told him about it, he didn't know it existed.  And that's because he knows NOTHING about Reading's roads.  How about that road sign still saying Reading Football Club?...

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Reading Football Club left Elm Park in 1998 - 27 years ago, yet still this sign exists in Portman Road.  A bit of white paint on a brush is a minute's job, isn't it?  Oh, and just 3.5 miles to the M4 from here, but nothing telling all the truck drivers that - and this is a huge industrial estate with trucks all day.  Which exit should they take?  Technically, all three will get you to the M4, but exit 1 is best for trucks.  But let's keep it a secret.  The sign suggests exit 1 for Oxford - yes, really - when it is obviously better to go around the roundabout and take exit 4.  Exit 1 will take trucks down the busy Oxford Road where the drivers can admire the scenery of overflowing commercial bins, the nail bars & tattoo parlours, the ubiquitous Turkish barbers, the kebab shops, and the multicultural make up that is Oxford Road.  Don't get me started on that one!

 

So, we know that a town like Reading, which dates back a thousand years, is going to have roads which are just not suitable for modern traffic.  Therefore, the town's planners already have a job on their hands...so why make it worse?  Here's an idea: why not manage it as best you can, not simply think you can force people onto smelly buses (partly filled!) with people of dubious mental health.  Sure, install bus lanes if it is expedient to do so, but not create chaos and hold ups by removing roundabouts.  Remember that just a fraction of road users are on a smelly bus:

'The RAC Foundation’s report showed that the dominance of the car as a mode of transport in the early years of the 21st Century is absolute and that policy makers must recognise this fact as they introduce measures to cut traffic and hence ease congestion and fight climate change.  The car continues to dominate most people’s daily travel.  In 2023, 60% of trips were made by car, either as a driver or passenger.  The car is also the most common mode for distance travelled, accounting for 78% of all miles travelled in 2023.  Walking was the most frequent mode used for short trips – 81% of trips under one mile were walks in 2023.  However, for all other distance bands, the car was the most frequent mode of travel.  Car use (both as driver and passenger) accounts for 76% of all trips in the 2-3 mile band and 80% of trips longer than five miles in length; above one mile, more than half of all trips are by car.'

 

Reading, more than ever, needs forward thinking - vision, and management.  It does not need more traffic signals and bus lanes.  Those two seem to be favoured by very many Councils.  Another is speed humps.  Reading Borough Council road planners think they're great!  Never mind that they don't work.  Car drivers who won't slow down for anything ignore them (mostly as they have leased cars, so suspension damage isn't an issue for them), and those who do slow down are the ones not speeding anyway!!!  So, they are largely pointless.  One, in Honey End Lane, Tilehurst, is simply huge.  It's called a 'cyclist's bridge' - allowing bicycles to traverse the road.  What it has done is to encourage twat cyclists to THINK that they have priority over road vehicles.  They do not, there are 'give way' markings prior to their entrance to the raised construction, but presumably, the twat cyclists are going so fast that the markings are just a blur to them - and they would ignore it, anyway, as twat cyclists do.  It isn't helped by twat drivers, either, who come to a stop and encourage people and bikes to cross!  It is NOT a pedestrian crossing - only in the sense of Rule H2 (170) of the Highway Code.  And this needs clarification, as there is no rule on how far away from a junction that drivers have to give way to pedestrians and cyclists.  Rule H2 doesn't cover it.  When is someone crossing 'at a junction' actually at a junction: 1 metre, 2 metres, 10 metres?   The Department of Transport ballsed-up the new ruling by not actually defining where a junction starts and ends.  Someone, either a pedestrian or cyclist will definitely be injured or killed at this Honey End Lane junction - it's only a matter of time.  And the blame should go to the twat planner who designed it.  I formally wrote to Reading Borough Council and asked for his/her name so that when it happens, blame can be suitably apportioned.  Of course, needless to say, Reading Borough Council never even replied to my request.  Nothing new there, they don't appear to reply to ANY requests for information.  I base this on my two instances of formally requiring information...and they never replied to either of them.  What a shocker?

 

Reading has an unfair (on drivers) number of useless signal junctions which bizarrely stop traffic when there is no traffic there!  I was told by someone at Siemens (I don't know if this is true) that it shouldn't happen, as the detection loops imbedded in the road should inhibit this.  Well, they don't!  One of the worst is Vastern Road at its junction with Trooper Potts Way.  Even when there is nothing on the west or east side of Trooper Potts Way, the signals at Vastern Road go red!!!

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Needless to say, it is infuriating to be brought to a standstill for a few minutes for absolutely no reason whatsoever.  Another is on the A33 just off the M4 Junction 11 - Reading bound - at the junction with the Reading International Business Park.  This turns red for Reading-bound traffic when there is no emerging traffic from the Park!

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Again, pointlessly holding up traffic.  I won't be told that people who 'work' at Reading Borough Council don't see the same traffic signals I see every day, so they MUST know about them like I do, but no one cares!  And yet we're supposed to be making traffic flow better, aren't we?  This is the crux of the issue.  Reading Borough Council has to deal with inadequate and antiquated roads, and an always-increasing traffic load.  You would THINK that they wouldn't make it worse - and yet they do, by not managing it in any manner that is adequate or joined up.

 

We also need to look at experimenting.  Reading's drivers would accept trials at junctions to see if something could work.  In 2020, a one-way system was tried with Prospect Street in Caversham.  It wasn't liked.  I must confess that I did like it, I thought it was a good idea.  However, Caversham people objected loudly and it was abandoned.  But to their credit, at least Reading Borough Council tried a scheme.  I don't know if the uproar it caused bruised some egos, but they never tried any more schemes as far as I am aware.  One scheme I would like to see tried is to remove the right turn from Berkely Avenue into Bath Road.

Copyright: GoogleMaps

Anyone wishing to turn right could instead turn left and travel a few metres to the roundabout on the Bath Road (A4) and take exit 3.  The left-hand turn into Bath Road (see green car in photo above) need not be signal-controlled, either.  It could simply be a give-way - just as it is further down this road at the junction with Rose Kiln Lane.  What this would do would be to free-up traffic flow on the Bath Road (A4).  It would no longer be halted by the traffic in Berkeley Avenue.  Signals would still be needed for pedestrians.  Why not give it a try for a month and see if it improves traffic flow?  But as I said, Reading Borough Council is either unaware of such ideas or is afraid of them.  I would rather believe the former - that there are too few collective brain cells to think of such schemes.

 

Another truly major scheme they could try is to make Cemetery Junction a one-way system.

Copyright: GoogleMaps

It would be possible to make this entire junction one-way.  London Road would be one-way eastbound, while Wokingham Road would be one-way westbound.  Eastbound traffic using Kings Road would continue down London Road.  At St Bartholomews Road, a junction would allow traffic to flow one-way southbound.  It would pick up with a westbound one-way Wokingham Road...which would continue one-way at Cemetery Junction down London Road.  It really is win-win, as even traffic from Hamilton Road and Bulmershe Road could use the current small slip road which is outside of the Cemetery entrance if they were eastbound toward Suttons Estate.  Yes, property owners in St Bartholomews Road would see increased traffic, but it is the only downside to the scheme.  It would hugely improve Cemetery Junction traffic flow simply because traffic would no longer be halted (except for pedestrians to cross).  There would, of course, be objections, but I think it is worthy of serious consideration simply because the current junction isn't working.  Such a scheme would also mean unimpeded bus journeys!  There would be no need of bus lanes, as there would be nothing to halt the traffic flow, and we would have three-lane roads!!!  Bus travel times would actually be improved.  A one-way Cemetery Junction scheme would lend itself very well to the concept simply because of the Cemetery itself acting as a (clockwise!) roundabout.  There are a few Wokingham Road residents who, if they wanted to travel Wokingham-bound, would find that they would have to use the one-way system, and could no longer simply turn right out of their driveways.  Similarly, Amity Road and Cholmeley Road traffic would need to turn left only and use the new system. But this is a good thing, as they currently hold up London Road traffic by crossing it.

 

Such a scheme would free-up Cemetery Junction once and for all.  I did suggest this scheme to Reading Borough Council a few years ago...and never even received an acknowledgment.  What a shocker?