Plans for dual carriageway do not include notorious bottleneck at bridge

Malvern Gazette: MISERY: A report says queues will increase by a staggering 200 per cent in the city. MISERY: A report says queues will increase by a staggering 200 per cent in the city.

A £38m package to help ease Worcester’s traffic chaos is being drawn up - including finally dualling part of the notorious Southern Link Road.

By 2018 Worcestershire County Council wants to dual the stretch from the Whittington island, near Junction 7 of the M5, all the way down to the Ketch roundabout in St Peter’s.

But it would not include the A4440’s Carrington Bridge stretch towards Powick, with critics already saying they have major fears it could worsen the bottlenecks at that location.

A new in-house report also reveals:

- Unless multi-millions can be found to improve roads in Worcester, queues will increase a staggering 200 per cent across the city

- During peak morning periods it currently takes over 13 minutes to get from the Powick island to Whittington roundabout, with motorists crawling at 12 miles an hour

- Unless nothing is done, by 2026 congestion on that stretch will rocket up to 40 per cent, meaning it will take 20 minutes, with drivers limping along at eight miles an hour at peak times

- More and more drivers are actively avoiding the Southern Link Road because of its reputation and are going to their destinations via the city centre or residential streets instead, affecting residents, businesses and increasing pollution

- Without major changes, due to new housing growth the performance of the A4440 will “deteriorate markedly” in future years

The Southern Link Road is used by around 30,000 cars per day, with the actual Carrington Bridge structure built in October 1984.

After years of gripes from drivers, the council is now drawing up the £38m plan, which will take four years of work to complete.

The project is being split into two phases, the first of which involves spending £8m on doubling the size of the Ketch roundabout and dualling the road heading towards Norton island, with a slip-road created for drivers turning left off Bath Road towards the M5.

After 12 weeks of public consultation starting next week, work will start in the spring and will take an entire year to finish, by around March 2015.

The council is then aiming to draw up designs for the dualling of Norton roundabout to Whittington island in the winter of 2014/15, with work set to start in the spring of 2016.

It will involve widening the railway structure that cars pass underneath, with the council hoping to “take possession” of it from Network Rail by Christmas 2017 to do the work.

The final phase will also involve the dualling of a remaining section of carriageway between the Norton and Ketch islands.

Of the £38m estimated total cost, the council says it is working on “significant private sector funding” to fund a large chunk of the final phase, as well as taxpayers’ cash.

That includes talks with London-based developer Welbeck Land, which wants to build a £400m, 2,200 home super village on 153 acres of land off Crookbarrow Way, St Peter’s.

The Department for Transport has handed over £6m, which the council has added £2m to so the Ketch work can start next year.

FEARS WORK WILL INCREASE CARRINGTON BRIDGE BOTTLENECK

RESIDENTS say they fear the work could worsen congestion down the A4440 Carrington Bridge - and is calling for fresh efforts to get extra investment.

Colin Wells, 51, of Dace Road, St Peter’s says he is concerned easing access down Broomhall Way, just past the Norton island, could make the situation worse.

He said: “Everyone around here knows the bridge is the bottleneck - that’s where the problems are day in, day out - even on Sundays.

“If it gets any worse I just won’t use it. They need to try and do whatever it takes to do the entire route.”

The county council has released a statement saying it “has identified” the problems, insisting “current queuing will be greatly reduced” by the work.

It has yet to reveal what reductions it hopes to achieve.

The main sticking point for the council is the full cost, with estimates suggesting widening or even replacing Carrington Bridge could cost £30 to £40m, although that is a very rough figure.

While the council is confident it can raise the estimated £38m for the part-dualling, mainly down to private backing, doing the last section remains out of reach.

Part of the problem is that Welbeck Land is reluctant to fund any Carrington Bridge work, saying the stretch is an “existing problem”.

The company says by early next year it hopes to be able to agree a funding package with the council for the rest of the project.

Andrew Smith, a director, said: “Considerable progress has been made, we are still working on it but hope to be in a position to finalise it soon.”

Councillor Roger Knight, who represents St Peter’s at the city council, said: “Traffic is bad in that area and will only get worse with the development we all know is going to happen.

“That pinch-point does worry me because unless you do the entire route, you’ll get this problem.”

Councillor Simon Geraghty, county council deputy leader and cabinet member for economy, skills and infrastructure said: “Sitting back and doing nothing is simply not an option, urgent action is needed.”

He added: "This scheme is been talked about for years and any dualling will help the situation.

"We'd like to do it all and that's not off the table at all, but we do need to do it in phases."

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:16pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

Well it's a start I suppose.

Worcester still needs the Carrington bridge made dual and the western/northern part of the ring road completed.

Maybe the plans to build between Dines Green and Crown East will provide some of the money for the latter.
Well it's a start I suppose. Worcester still needs the Carrington bridge made dual and the western/northern part of the ring road completed. Maybe the plans to build between Dines Green and Crown East will provide some of the money for the latter. Hwicce

3:38pm Sat 7 Dec 13

skychip says...

The County Council weren't very forward planning when the Southern Link was designed. Probably wouldn't have cost too much more to dual it in the beginning.
The County Council weren't very forward planning when the Southern Link was designed. Probably wouldn't have cost too much more to dual it in the beginning. skychip

4:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Jabbadad says...

Well you won't need £300,000 consultacy fees to tell you that without the NORTHERN BYPASS it won't matter how many alterarions you make in the South the traffic that wishes to go North will still be clogging up the roads in the South.
Thank You that will be £30,000 consultancy please COUN JOHN SMITH.
Or £1 for common sense fees, which WCC just don't have, do they?
Well you won't need £300,000 consultacy fees to tell you that without the NORTHERN BYPASS it won't matter how many alterarions you make in the South the traffic that wishes to go North will still be clogging up the roads in the South. Thank You that will be £30,000 consultancy please COUN JOHN SMITH. Or £1 for common sense fees, which WCC just don't have, do they? Jabbadad

5:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Andy-Apache says...

Perhaps the developers need to start making good on their broken promises to provide for employment on the huge housing tracts - as they did and then broke at Malvern Vale, and will probably do at Newlands. This would reduce the need to commute in the first place.

However, they don't seem to let piffling issues like employment get in the way of their countryside destroying 'get rich quick' style of development, and the councils don't seem to keen on questioning it either.
Perhaps the developers need to start making good on their broken promises to provide for employment on the huge housing tracts - as they did and then broke at Malvern Vale, and will probably do at Newlands. This would reduce the need to commute in the first place. However, they don't seem to let piffling issues like employment get in the way of their countryside destroying 'get rich quick' style of development, and the councils don't seem to keen on questioning it either. Andy-Apache

5:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Doogie 46 says...

Not sure these measures would make any improvements to current traffic flow, never mind when traffic from all the new development is added.
Dualling the road without the bridge is somewhat bizarre - traffic from both directions will have to merge into one lane to cross the bridge - accident repair firms will think every day is Xmas Day.
Without dealing with the expensive bits of the problem (the bridge and the Northern by-pass) much of the £38million will be wasted.
Not sure these measures would make any improvements to current traffic flow, never mind when traffic from all the new development is added. Dualling the road without the bridge is somewhat bizarre - traffic from both directions will have to merge into one lane to cross the bridge - accident repair firms will think every day is Xmas Day. Without dealing with the expensive bits of the problem (the bridge and the Northern by-pass) much of the £38million will be wasted. Doogie 46

7:59pm Sat 7 Dec 13

yamoto says...

to think we are handing over are hard earnt taxed money to these idiots, ITS THE NORTHERN LINK ROAD THAT WE NEED. FOOLS !!!!!!!
to think we are handing over are hard earnt taxed money to these idiots, ITS THE NORTHERN LINK ROAD THAT WE NEED. FOOLS !!!!!!! yamoto

8:03pm Sat 7 Dec 13

mijas4@live.com says...

It is completely nonsense that it takes 13 minutes to go from Powick Island to Whittington Island. I travel this route each day and it is getting worse and now takes me 30 minutes. In fact most of the time I take to go to Birmingham is taken up on the Southern ring road.

I am increasingly travelling via Hallow which I am sure will put more pressure on the smaller roads.

Then you read how all the new houses will not have an impact on the traffic !

Can't believe we pay so much for these fools !
It is completely nonsense that it takes 13 minutes to go from Powick Island to Whittington Island. I travel this route each day and it is getting worse and now takes me 30 minutes. In fact most of the time I take to go to Birmingham is taken up on the Southern ring road. I am increasingly travelling via Hallow which I am sure will put more pressure on the smaller roads. Then you read how all the new houses will not have an impact on the traffic ! Can't believe we pay so much for these fools ! mijas4@live.com

8:18pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Old Uncle says...

Doogie 46 wrote:
Not sure these measures would make any improvements to current traffic flow, never mind when traffic from all the new development is added.
Dualling the road without the bridge is somewhat bizarre - traffic from both directions will have to merge into one lane to cross the bridge - accident repair firms will think every day is Xmas Day.
Without dealing with the expensive bits of the problem (the bridge and the Northern by-pass) much of the £38million will be wasted.
This!
Dualling the road just moves the bottleneck and allows more cars to be "parked" on the carriageway.
[quote][p][bold]Doogie 46[/bold] wrote: Not sure these measures would make any improvements to current traffic flow, never mind when traffic from all the new development is added. Dualling the road without the bridge is somewhat bizarre - traffic from both directions will have to merge into one lane to cross the bridge - accident repair firms will think every day is Xmas Day. Without dealing with the expensive bits of the problem (the bridge and the Northern by-pass) much of the £38million will be wasted.[/p][/quote]This! Dualling the road just moves the bottleneck and allows more cars to be "parked" on the carriageway. Old Uncle

8:30pm Sat 7 Dec 13

newike says...

As others have said, surely EVERYONE can see the ring road needs to be completed. The northern ring would take half of the traffic. Adding anything to the southern road without doubling the bridge would leave things exactly as they are. With all the extra houses and no ring road things will get worse year on year.
As others have said, surely EVERYONE can see the ring road needs to be completed. The northern ring would take half of the traffic. Adding anything to the southern road without doubling the bridge would leave things exactly as they are. With all the extra houses and no ring road things will get worse year on year. newike

8:37pm Sat 7 Dec 13

geoffknightonseverngmail.com says...

Why not instead finish the ring road by building the northern piece with another bridge across the Severn at Bevere.

50% of the people approaching Worcester would go north about thus relieving the strain on the southern link.

It would be more convenient for us folks north of the city. and relieve the strain on the city centre.

Please send my £300,000 consultancy fee to the Salvation Army who do a sterling job this time of year.
Why not instead finish the ring road by building the northern piece with another bridge across the Severn at Bevere. 50% of the people approaching Worcester would go north about thus relieving the strain on the southern link. It would be more convenient for us folks north of the city. and relieve the strain on the city centre. Please send my £300,000 consultancy fee to the Salvation Army who do a sterling job this time of year. geoffknightonseverngmail.com

9:18pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Keith B says...

It's named after Cllr. Carrington .... who was the man responsible for it's building as a single carriageway when it was clear from day one it required a dual carriageway.

He was one of the old school of Tory Councillors who - along with Dr Muffett - had their own ways of doing things, much of which was about over-ruling expert advice. Both are now dead but my belief always was that the reason that the planned ring road didn't extend all the way around Worcester was that it would cut through much of Carrington's Ward. Co-incidentally, the present ring stops just short of the boundary either side of that Ward!
It's named after Cllr. Carrington .... who was the man responsible for it's building as a single carriageway when it was clear from day one it required a dual carriageway. He was one of the old school of Tory Councillors who - along with Dr Muffett - had their own ways of doing things, much of which was about over-ruling expert advice. Both are now dead but my belief always was that the reason that the planned ring road didn't extend all the way around Worcester was that it would cut through much of Carrington's Ward. Co-incidentally, the present ring stops just short of the boundary either side of that Ward! Keith B

11:41pm Sat 7 Dec 13

solar1 says...

"Part of the problem is that Welbeck Land is reluctant to fund any Carrington Bridge work, saying the stretch is an “existing problem”. "

Yes, this IS an existing problem but about to be made a hell of a lot worse by the building of 2000 homes in the vicinity.

Wellbeck Land should be forced to use some of their profit to share the funding of these improvements - not just shrug and say it's not their problem.
"Part of the problem is that Welbeck Land is reluctant to fund any Carrington Bridge work, saying the stretch is an “existing problem”. " Yes, this IS an existing problem but about to be made a hell of a lot worse by the building of 2000 homes in the vicinity. Wellbeck Land should be forced to use some of their profit to share the funding of these improvements - not just shrug and say it's not their problem. solar1

12:49am Sun 8 Dec 13

Marillion says...

Just a thought regarding this on-going and growing problem.
Anybody using this road on a regular basis would know that very few pedestrians travel this route.
Reference the bridge has anybody considered removing the pavement from the one side and the spare ground on the opposite side, narrowing the lanes slightly therefore providing a second lane heading from Powick towards the M5, which seems to be the more congested of the two routes. Reducing the speed to 30mph (5 x times quicker than most times now) over the bridge due to the narrow lanes, and moving and building a much larger traffic island on the land currently used for car boots therefore giving traffic time to exit the bridge.
Regarding pedestrians a cantilevered structure could be added to the bridge at a fraction of the cost of building a new bridge.
Obviously the link road still needs duelling, but its only a thought and its free.
Just a thought regarding this on-going and growing problem. Anybody using this road on a regular basis would know that very few pedestrians travel this route. Reference the bridge has anybody considered removing the pavement from the one side and the spare ground on the opposite side, narrowing the lanes slightly therefore providing a second lane heading from Powick towards the M5, which seems to be the more congested of the two routes. Reducing the speed to 30mph (5 x times quicker than most times now) over the bridge due to the narrow lanes, and moving and building a much larger traffic island on the land currently used for car boots therefore giving traffic time to exit the bridge. Regarding pedestrians a cantilevered structure could be added to the bridge at a fraction of the cost of building a new bridge. Obviously the link road still needs duelling, but its only a thought and its free. Marillion

2:35am Sun 8 Dec 13

Saturn V says...

A waste of money.
If people want to queue up in traffic every day then that's their problem.
Why should I pay for commuters who want to live miles away from where they spend most of their lives working?
A waste of money. If people want to queue up in traffic every day then that's their problem. Why should I pay for commuters who want to live miles away from where they spend most of their lives working? Saturn V

10:43am Sun 8 Dec 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

So the council is to spend £38million on a car park!
So the council is to spend £38million on a car park! imustbeoldiwearacap

11:43am Sun 8 Dec 13

skychip says...

From all the comments above we generally agree the problem won't be solved with spending many millions on the road. Would like to hear a comment from the County Council because it seems that they are the only ones who don't see our points of view.
From all the comments above we generally agree the problem won't be solved with spending many millions on the road. Would like to hear a comment from the County Council because it seems that they are the only ones who don't see our points of view. skychip

11:50am Sun 8 Dec 13

Peter Huntington says...

Posters who have said complete the Northern link are quite correct. Just dualing part of the Southern Link is just tinkering. Plus the Carrington Bridge must be improved-the suggestion of taking a footpath is a good one.
But how about stopping any large scale development until these improvements have been completed? This St Peter`s nonsense will generate c14,000 extra traffic movements per day, most of which will end up on the Southern Link.
What we need is a massive campaign on this with volunteers alerting (stationary) drivers what extra housing and supermarkets mean unless roads are improved significantly more than what is currently on offer.
Posters who have said complete the Northern link are quite correct. Just dualing part of the Southern Link is just tinkering. Plus the Carrington Bridge must be improved-the suggestion of taking a footpath is a good one. But how about stopping any large scale development until these improvements have been completed? This St Peter`s nonsense will generate c14,000 extra traffic movements per day, most of which will end up on the Southern Link. What we need is a massive campaign on this with volunteers alerting (stationary) drivers what extra housing and supermarkets mean unless roads are improved significantly more than what is currently on offer. Peter Huntington

12:41pm Sun 8 Dec 13

I'm_not_bitter says...

It seems to be agreed that the infrastructure is an existing problem, so clearly the area is not suitable for development until it is resolved and Welbeck should be told that. If they wish to financially contribute to solving the problem thus allowing the development then reducing their profit margins and adding £10k (about 5%) to the price of 2200 new houses will go a long way towards the total required.
It seems to be agreed that the infrastructure is an existing problem, so clearly the area is not suitable for development until it is resolved and Welbeck should be told that. If they wish to financially contribute to solving the problem thus allowing the development then reducing their profit margins and adding £10k (about 5%) to the price of 2200 new houses will go a long way towards the total required. I'm_not_bitter

1:09pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Pomygranit says...

The northern link road will not go ahead, the planning permission for housing on Earls Court farm will take priority.
As the land is in Malvern Hills they will not give a toss about Worcesters problems. In fact the Tories of Claines are most probably applauding MHDC in their plans.
The northern link road will not go ahead, the planning permission for housing on Earls Court farm will take priority. As the land is in Malvern Hills they will not give a toss about Worcesters problems. In fact the Tories of Claines are most probably applauding MHDC in their plans. Pomygranit

1:13pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Peter Huntington says...

Pomygranit wrote:
The northern link road will not go ahead, the planning permission for housing on Earls Court farm will take priority.
As the land is in Malvern Hills they will not give a toss about Worcesters problems. In fact the Tories of Claines are most probably applauding MHDC in their plans.
I live in Malvern Hills and will get extra traffic past my door on the A449 if 700 new houses are built at Newland. It`s already very congested through Powick leading up to Powick Hams roundabout. It`s Malvern Hills` problem too.
[quote][p][bold]Pomygranit[/bold] wrote: The northern link road will not go ahead, the planning permission for housing on Earls Court farm will take priority. As the land is in Malvern Hills they will not give a toss about Worcesters problems. In fact the Tories of Claines are most probably applauding MHDC in their plans.[/p][/quote]I live in Malvern Hills and will get extra traffic past my door on the A449 if 700 new houses are built at Newland. It`s already very congested through Powick leading up to Powick Hams roundabout. It`s Malvern Hills` problem too. Peter Huntington

1:18pm Sun 8 Dec 13

copierman says...

Here we go again.
Everyone knows the only viable route is to go is west over the river and join the existing A449 dual carriageway near Clains.
Is that going to be in the Public consultation?
This has been discussed so many times over the years but it seems the authorities don't see to hear what the people of South Worcestershire are telling them!
Here we go again. Everyone knows the only viable route is to go is west over the river and join the existing A449 dual carriageway near Clains. Is that going to be in the Public consultation? This has been discussed so many times over the years but it seems the authorities don't see to hear what the people of South Worcestershire are telling them! copierman

2:16pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Lew Smoralz says...

A small minority of Worcestershire, called Claines, have held the rest of us to ransom for the last 30 years, and still it continues.

Almost everybody I speak to wants the completion of the Northern link, but Worcestershire council won't even make a public statement about it.

This totally undemocratic situation has to be escalated to Central Government. Crossing the river Severn is a national issue, not just the unsolvable city of Worcester problem.

Our Worcester MP is strangely quiet on this subject, and I would be interested in understanding his arguments for opposing the Northern Link.
A small minority of Worcestershire, called Claines, have held the rest of us to ransom for the last 30 years, and still it continues. Almost everybody I speak to wants the completion of the Northern link, but Worcestershire council won't even make a public statement about it. This totally undemocratic situation has to be escalated to Central Government. Crossing the river Severn is a national issue, not just the unsolvable city of Worcester problem. Our Worcester MP is strangely quiet on this subject, and I would be interested in understanding his arguments for opposing the Northern Link. Lew Smoralz

2:34pm Sun 8 Dec 13

DEMRICS says...

With the recent fiasco over Evesham bridge, I have no faith whatsoever in the highways department being able to make any changes to the Southern Link Road that will deliver any measurable benefits or improvements. In fact, with all of us fully aware of their appalling track record, I fear that what we will end up with is is a road that will be poorly redesigned, constructed and managed, while road safety will be reduced.

Before even a penny of this £38m is spent, tax payers need to ensure that measures, scrutiny and accountability are in place to enable us all to not only ensure value for money, but to also make sure that the job will be done properly with aptitude and that the end result improves matters, not make things worse as is usually the case. It wouldn't go amiss for the more professional, dedicated and cleverer private sector were tasked with delivering any changes to the Southern Link Road, with the Worcestershire LEP managing and casting a watchful eye, which would also result in accountability to the public.
With the recent fiasco over Evesham bridge, I have no faith whatsoever in the highways department being able to make any changes to the Southern Link Road that will deliver any measurable benefits or improvements. In fact, with all of us fully aware of their appalling track record, I fear that what we will end up with is is a road that will be poorly redesigned, constructed and managed, while road safety will be reduced. Before even a penny of this £38m is spent, tax payers need to ensure that measures, scrutiny and accountability are in place to enable us all to not only ensure value for money, but to also make sure that the job will be done properly with aptitude and that the end result improves matters, not make things worse as is usually the case. It wouldn't go amiss for the more professional, dedicated and cleverer private sector were tasked with delivering any changes to the Southern Link Road, with the Worcestershire LEP managing and casting a watchful eye, which would also result in accountability to the public. DEMRICS

2:45pm Sun 8 Dec 13

DEMRICS says...

Perhaps rather than tinkering with the Southern Link Road, there should instead be a focus on delivering a new link road between Malvern and the M5, with the creation of a Junction 7a. The majority of traffic using the Southern Link Road is to/from Malvern and the M5 via the A449. If the Southern Link Road's capacity is increased, it will only only be a matter of time before maximum capacity is reached while the roundabouts are not conducive so ensuring traffic flows freely, something only flyovers can achieve.
Perhaps rather than tinkering with the Southern Link Road, there should instead be a focus on delivering a new link road between Malvern and the M5, with the creation of a Junction 7a. The majority of traffic using the Southern Link Road is to/from Malvern and the M5 via the A449. If the Southern Link Road's capacity is increased, it will only only be a matter of time before maximum capacity is reached while the roundabouts are not conducive so ensuring traffic flows freely, something only flyovers can achieve. DEMRICS

4:07pm Sun 8 Dec 13

bobs68 says...

As everyone knows and states that the bridge is the problem.
Then surely anyone with common sense should know that that is the place to START not everywhere else first to increase traffic and to make the problem 100% worse..
OH I forgot it was in the hands of " planners" not normal human beings,
so common sense is the last thing they think of is ----- there pockets a priority?
As everyone knows and states that the bridge is the problem. Then surely anyone with common sense should know that that is the place to START not everywhere else first to increase traffic and to make the problem 100% worse.. OH I forgot it was in the hands of " planners" not normal human beings, so common sense is the last thing they think of is ----- there pockets a priority? bobs68

4:21pm Sun 8 Dec 13

EconoXL says...

Have they made up any figures for how much the completion of the northern part of the link road is likely to cost? It does seem that It's the most logical idea, as it essentially doubles the capacity. I imagine that it would solve a lot of the traffic problems in the city centre too.
Have they made up any figures for how much the completion of the northern part of the link road is likely to cost? It does seem that It's the most logical idea, as it essentially doubles the capacity. I imagine that it would solve a lot of the traffic problems in the city centre too. EconoXL

4:37pm Sun 8 Dec 13

EconoXL says...

The northern part of the ring road would cost about £100 million apparently. So if you took the £40 million this nonsense is going to cost and added another £40 million that the Carrington Bridge will cost to dual track then you've got most of your northern link road budget.
The northern part of the ring road would cost about £100 million apparently. So if you took the £40 million this nonsense is going to cost and added another £40 million that the Carrington Bridge will cost to dual track then you've got most of your northern link road budget. EconoXL

4:51pm Sun 8 Dec 13

dropkick55 says...

bobs68 wrote:
As everyone knows and states that the bridge is the problem.
Then surely anyone with common sense should know that that is the place to START not everywhere else first to increase traffic and to make the problem 100% worse..
OH I forgot it was in the hands of " planners" not normal human beings,
so common sense is the last thing they think of is ----- there pockets a priority?
It would help if the planners came from here and cared what the locals think!!
[quote][p][bold]bobs68[/bold] wrote: As everyone knows and states that the bridge is the problem. Then surely anyone with common sense should know that that is the place to START not everywhere else first to increase traffic and to make the problem 100% worse.. OH I forgot it was in the hands of " planners" not normal human beings, so common sense is the last thing they think of is ----- there pockets a priority?[/p][/quote]It would help if the planners came from here and cared what the locals think!! dropkick55

6:23pm Sun 8 Dec 13

The Doosra says...

DEMRICS wrote:
With the recent fiasco over Evesham bridge, I have no faith whatsoever in the highways department being able to make any changes to the Southern Link Road that will deliver any measurable benefits or improvements. In fact, with all of us fully aware of their appalling track record, I fear that what we will end up with is is a road that will be poorly redesigned, constructed and managed, while road safety will be reduced.

Before even a penny of this £38m is spent, tax payers need to ensure that measures, scrutiny and accountability are in place to enable us all to not only ensure value for money, but to also make sure that the job will be done properly with aptitude and that the end result improves matters, not make things worse as is usually the case. It wouldn't go amiss for the more professional, dedicated and cleverer private sector were tasked with delivering any changes to the Southern Link Road, with the Worcestershire LEP managing and casting a watchful eye, which would also result in accountability to the public.
Please provide verifiable evidence of where the private sector has consistently improved on the level of service provision when a local government function has been externalised.
[quote][p][bold]DEMRICS[/bold] wrote: With the recent fiasco over Evesham bridge, I have no faith whatsoever in the highways department being able to make any changes to the Southern Link Road that will deliver any measurable benefits or improvements. In fact, with all of us fully aware of their appalling track record, I fear that what we will end up with is is a road that will be poorly redesigned, constructed and managed, while road safety will be reduced. Before even a penny of this £38m is spent, tax payers need to ensure that measures, scrutiny and accountability are in place to enable us all to not only ensure value for money, but to also make sure that the job will be done properly with aptitude and that the end result improves matters, not make things worse as is usually the case. It wouldn't go amiss for the more professional, dedicated and cleverer private sector were tasked with delivering any changes to the Southern Link Road, with the Worcestershire LEP managing and casting a watchful eye, which would also result in accountability to the public.[/p][/quote]Please provide verifiable evidence of where the private sector has consistently improved on the level of service provision when a local government function has been externalised. The Doosra

6:26pm Sun 8 Dec 13

The Doosra says...

DEMRICS wrote:
Perhaps rather than tinkering with the Southern Link Road, there should instead be a focus on delivering a new link road between Malvern and the M5, with the creation of a Junction 7a. The majority of traffic using the Southern Link Road is to/from Malvern and the M5 via the A449. If the Southern Link Road's capacity is increased, it will only only be a matter of time before maximum capacity is reached while the roundabouts are not conducive so ensuring traffic flows freely, something only flyovers can achieve.
For once I'm in agreement: such a road would benefit Malvern's economy immensely - probably at a fraction of the cost of the Northern Link.
[quote][p][bold]DEMRICS[/bold] wrote: Perhaps rather than tinkering with the Southern Link Road, there should instead be a focus on delivering a new link road between Malvern and the M5, with the creation of a Junction 7a. The majority of traffic using the Southern Link Road is to/from Malvern and the M5 via the A449. If the Southern Link Road's capacity is increased, it will only only be a matter of time before maximum capacity is reached while the roundabouts are not conducive so ensuring traffic flows freely, something only flyovers can achieve.[/p][/quote]For once I'm in agreement: such a road would benefit Malvern's economy immensely - probably at a fraction of the cost of the Northern Link. The Doosra

8:19pm Sun 8 Dec 13

old misery says...

You can make it Four lanes each way and you will still get congestion at the roudabouts fly overs are the answer which should have been built originally. I know it would have been more expensive but to kepp throwing money at it now is even more expensive and will not solve the problem,
You can make it Four lanes each way and you will still get congestion at the roudabouts fly overs are the answer which should have been built originally. I know it would have been more expensive but to kepp throwing money at it now is even more expensive and will not solve the problem, old misery

8:52am Mon 9 Dec 13

pudniw_gib says...

I dont know what the fussis about.....not a problem on my bike...apart from all thoseparked carsmaking the place look messy.
I dont know what the fussis about.....not a problem on my bike...apart from all thoseparked carsmaking the place look messy. pudniw_gib

8:03pm Tue 10 Dec 13

uptonX says...

Junction 7A was planned as part of the original M5 build in the 60s. Part of it is even built, there is a "Police only" M5 access about a mile north of Kinnersley, that was junction 8 (there should be no number on M50 motorway to motorway junction as in rest of the network). The link road would then go due west, new roundabout on A38 and then on due west over the river and join up with the end of the Guarlford road by the Rhydd. Look at the map and you can see it makes sense. It is not even that far, about 2 miles over open farmland. It would make a huge positive difference to the traffic around the southern link and the economy of Malvern and surrounding towns.
Junction 7A was planned as part of the original M5 build in the 60s. Part of it is even built, there is a "Police only" M5 access about a mile north of Kinnersley, that was junction 8 (there should be no number on M50 motorway to motorway junction as in rest of the network). The link road would then go due west, new roundabout on A38 and then on due west over the river and join up with the end of the Guarlford road by the Rhydd. Look at the map and you can see it makes sense. It is not even that far, about 2 miles over open farmland. It would make a huge positive difference to the traffic around the southern link and the economy of Malvern and surrounding towns. uptonX

4:05pm Thu 12 Dec 13

chrism says...

old misery wrote:
You can make it Four lanes each way and you will still get congestion at the roudabouts fly overs are the answer which should have been built originally. I know it would have been more expensive but to kepp throwing money at it now is even more expensive and will not solve the problem,
Phew - I was worried that I was the only one thinking that! I also disagree with those commenting that the main issue is at the bridge and the Ketch roundabout - yes it is bad there, but in my experience the actual bottle neck is at the Norton roundabout. Once past that the traffic usually flows freely, making it clear that doing something to the roundabouts to improve traffic flow (whether that is flyovers or something else) is actually the correct thing to do. Unfortunately I'm still convinced that the suggested changes to the Ketch roundabout are actually likely to make things worse by adding more traffic from a direction which isn't congested into the bottleneck.
[quote][p][bold]old misery[/bold] wrote: You can make it Four lanes each way and you will still get congestion at the roudabouts fly overs are the answer which should have been built originally. I know it would have been more expensive but to kepp throwing money at it now is even more expensive and will not solve the problem,[/p][/quote]Phew - I was worried that I was the only one thinking that! I also disagree with those commenting that the main issue is at the bridge and the Ketch roundabout - yes it is bad there, but in my experience the actual bottle neck is at the Norton roundabout. Once past that the traffic usually flows freely, making it clear that doing something to the roundabouts to improve traffic flow (whether that is flyovers or something else) is actually the correct thing to do. Unfortunately I'm still convinced that the suggested changes to the Ketch roundabout are actually likely to make things worse by adding more traffic from a direction which isn't congested into the bottleneck. chrism

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree