And so it came to pass - As predicted, Wiltshire Council's originally preferred route option 10c (long eastern bypass) is being taking forward as part of the current engagement exercise, which ends on 8 August 2021 - see
https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/news/engagement-on-next-stage-of-proposed-melksham-bypass-begins-today They have also produced a handy video so you can visualise the route of the bypass once it is completed:
VIDEO 2 immediate observations spring to mind:
- All the planned drainage ponds appear to be to the right-hand side of the bypass (ie the opposite side from where the current Melksham and Bowerhill housing is situated)
- It will be interesting to see how many people view the video, and end up visualising infill housing to the left hand side of the bypass, bringing the Melksham and Bowerhill urban area right up to the new road - And if they do, how many will view the prospect as Melksham's Bypass Opportunity, or as Melksham's Bypass Curse?
I must stress at this point that I have no strong views either way on this, and as grahame and others will testify, have come up with proposals for both scenarios.
If Melksham goes with the bypass and infill housing, then the reason that I cited Saint Brieuc in the previous post is that they are at the end of the trajectory that Melksham would be embarking on in that scenario, having started with roughly the same population level as Melksham has today and doubling it, becoming a genuine centre of regional importance in the process. What's more, following the "complementarity" approach, they have a top notch bus network, excellent active travel walking and cycling routes, a decent road network, and a railway station multimodal interchange with frequent regional services that came 2nd in France's most recent national "Best Station Awards"
As an example, I have drawn up a map of what an "Double Melksham's" Town Bus Network might look like if they followed a similar approach, modelled on Saint Brieuc's high-frequency colour-coded Chronotub network, see bottom of post.
The downside of course is that a lot of formerly "green" land was built over in the process.
If on the other hand, Melksham doesn't go for a bypass and infill housing approach, then they will still need to make significant improvements to their public transport and active travel networks just to properly cater for what they have now population and development-wise, with buses that will get you to medical facilities but not back again, dont run via the railway station or arent frequent or comprehensive enough to adequately serve recent housing developments, along with a cycle and walking route network that has potential, but falls short on delivery in a number of frustrating ways - not to mention a rail service that needs to move towards hourly all day, every day - all examples of what needs to be tackled and rectified, and we have plans that will fix all of that and provide more besides.
There is a wider context that needs to kept a close eye on as well. One fascinating aspect of all this is that in the original Melksham Bypass consultation, every Town and Parish Council who responded were prepared to at least accept a bypass if appropriate mitigation measures were put in place. By contrast, all 7 Parish Councils who would be affected by an A36/A46 link road will not accept one under any circumstances.
I suspect that such official attitudes do not go unnoticed by those who have influence over road trunking decisions. I would not be at all surprised if the building of a Melksham Bypass represented a tipping point in the A350 vs A36/A46 debate - perhaps something for both supporters and opponents of a Melksham Bypass to ponder and weigh up.