The four exhibitions that were held were all very successful, with each having over 50 people attend. The response rate for returned questionnaires was also good and may have been better had those people who sent formal objections and the petition completed questionnaires.

The reason we did not complete questionnaires is because these were distorted to the point of being almost fraudulent.

HOW DARE YOU PATRONISE US!

YOU then go on to deduce conclusions from a handful of returned questionnaires completed by those who had not seen through the devious construction of this document.

The majority of people that attended were those living along the Red Route/side road along the route who heard about the consultation from the Leaflets sent out, as 51% of respondents had said that this was how they were informed, which shows that they were a successful method of publicity. Many respondents also lived away from the Red Route and others worked in the area, which showed that newspapers, Leaflets and posters were all good methods of publicity, as well as the ‘A’ boards outside the venues as some were attracted by these when passing by. People who visited these exhibitions came from far and wide as many postcodes away from the Red Route were represented including all those that are along the route too.

What a load of semi-literate bureaucratic gobbledygook! Apart from which it is irrelevant. The majority of people who live and work here, who pay their rates and taxes, DO NOT WANT A RED ROUTE.

Respondents mainly travelled along the A461 and A491 by car, with the second main mode being on foot. Not many at all used motorcycles or pedal cycles along the route.

So what?

The scheme attributes of major importance to the residents were to reduce accidents, ‘improve the environment’ and ‘provide improved equal access for everyone. Respondents perceived that these attributes may not easily be achieved by Red Routes- However, the ability of the scheme to provide improved pedestrian facilities, increase bus reliability, faster journey times and increase journey time reliability were seen to be more likely

The views of a small minority based entirely on ‘suggestions’ of possible outcomes (all weighted in favour of the scheme proposers)

A few respondents were happy with the Red Route scheme and wanted it  implementing as soon as possible and some suggested other routes where additional Red Routes could  be implemented, with a main one being to and from Merry Hill shopping centre. However, many objected to the scheme and petitions and letters of formal objection were sent . The people who signed the petition and objected to the scheme had not all attended the exhibitions  and so may not be fully aware nor understand what Red Routes is all about as they have alt sent in either the same letters or just put down a signature. Neither the petition not the formal objections gave reasons as to why they were objecting to the Red Route scheme, simply that they did not want it.

A few means NOT MANY, A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY

Many means most. Have you counted the number of RED LIGHT to RED ROUTE posters in residents’ windows on the Stourbridge Road.

PATRONISING OR WHAT!!!!!!

But we assure you that we are not just being ‘NIMBYS’, our reasoned arguments will be forthcoming at a strategic point in the decision process.

Respondents however, that have commented on specific problems have raised concerns over many issues. Some respondents felt that there is no need for Red Routes when there are already yellow lines in place and suggest that yellow lines should just be enforced instead, but there is a lack of traffic wardens. Others feel that Red Routes will too be ignored like the yellow lines unless traffic wardens and police are around.

How many respondents express these views compared with the thousands of us who are opposed to the red route in any shape or form.

Many residents have concerns over parking, as they feel that parking is not the cause of congestion on these routes but that it is due to the volume of traffic. Residents all want to be able to park in front of there houses and many feel that parking bays will be insufficient especially where there are traders nearby and when houses all do not have driveways. There are concerns of where disabled bays will be allocated and many have requested them outside their homes. There are concerns that social lives may be affected as visitors will have nowhere to park. There are also concerns that parking problems along the route will lead to increased parking on side streets. Parking problems were mainly related to Amblecote High Street, Brettell Lane and Stourbridge Road.

While we would broadly agree with some of this it really is too imprecise!

We would suggest that parking is not a problem.

We would further suggest that congestion is only a problem in Brierley Hill Town Centre and since this is largely caused by traffic lights we cannot see a red route having any impact.

What is the man talking about? We have NO parking problems in Amblecote or Stourbridge Road!!!!!!

Residents feel that the scheme does not consider their needs and traders are worried about the loss of trade, as they will no longer be able to attract passing trade. There are suggestions for the need for more parking bays by traders. Some residents are also asking for compensation as they feel that their house prices will fall as a result of no parking and traders want compensation for lost trade.

NOT QUITE RIGHT. We DO NOT WANT COMPENSATION! WE SIMPLY DO NOT WANT A RED ROUTE!

Many respondents had concerns that the scheme would encourage more people to speed. They also said that speeding was already a problem along the route. especially along Brettell Lane and Stourbridge Road. Many felt the need for speed cameras, clearer signs and pedestrian crossings to make a safer environment.

OK lets put it simply, you claim Red Routes save accidents (proof/evidence?) but we suggest that a few speed cameras at a cost of a few thousands are much more effective than a red route at a cost of millions (OF OUR MONEY!)

Some respondents stated that traffic lights were the main cause of congestion and many needed retiming. There were also issues raised about the location of bus stops and loading bays in relation to trader areas

Yes, but probably residual issues.

There were some suggestions of blocking access onto Brierley Hill High Street. due to it being heavily congested and others stated that car parks in the area should be made free, so people would still be attracted to the area and will make use of these parking facilities.

Is there not a longer term plan to pedestrianise Brierley Hill High Street at the same time as Merry Hill becomes the new Brierley Hill Town Centre? If so the main ‘raison d’etre’ for the proposal has gone!

Residents suggested that car parks to the rear of residential housing along the route should be made safer, like the one behind Church Street, so residents have somewhere to park without congesting side streets. Others suggested the need, where possible, for rear access to houses for additional parking, as on Stourbridge Road.

Such measures may make life easier for specific areas. But you do not need to impose a red route on everyone to achieve this small benefit for a few.

A few respondents stated that congestion was partly caused along the road by shoppers wanting to get to Merry Hill as signs direct them along this route, when in actuaL fact it is quicker to go alternative ways. Residents suggest that those signs should be changed.

While generally there is little congestion it does become a slight  problem at weekends as we near Christmas and it would be much more sensible to route Merry Hill visitors down the Pedmore Road. It would have been even more sensible if the planners had thought fit to link the Southern bypass via Pear Tree Lane.