Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership

The main Worcester Bridge: council rules out another

The main Worcester Bridge: council rules out another

First published in News Malvern Gazette: Tom Edwards Exclusive by , Political Reporter

PLEAS for a new bridge in Worcester city centre have been ruled out by the county council - which says it is "not something" it would be prepared to back.

Councillor Simon Geraghty, deputy leader of the Conservative cabinet, says it would cost too much money and finding the right location for it would prove problematic.

He also says he now feels some kind of flooding protection for Worcester's New Road should be a priority - insisting that the closure of that route has a terrible impact on traffic flow across the city.

New Road, where Worcestershire County Cricket Club's ground is based, has three lanes and it was shut off for several days last month along with the main Worcester Bridge when river levels burst their banks.

Two weeks ago Worcester City Council sent a letter to David Cameron, asking the Prime Minister to find the cash towards a second city crossing.

But Cllr Geraghty, cabinet member for economy, skills and infrastructure, said it was not on the agenda at County Hall.

During a meeting of the overview, scrutiny and performance board, he was challenged over the council's view on a new bridge.

He said the council would be looking at several big road projects over the next few years, but a second crossing "is not one of those schemes".

"One of the things we've always said we must do is look at the resilience of the (roads) network now the floods are over," he said.

"Clearly, as we saw at the time there does come a point when key routes can't be left open.

"If you look at New Road, for example, that's one route we'll be looking at carefully because if we can keep that open when we have flooding, it'll be a lot cheaper than building a second bridge.

"There is a section of New Road that we know does flood, and we must look at that as a priority as part of a multi-agency approach."

Councillor Richard Udall, who chaired the meeting, said: "If we can do that (protect New Road) we will achieve a lot.

"Clearly, New Road is closing a lot more regularly, it was shut in 2001, 2007 and now in 2014."

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:36am Thu 13 Mar 14

CJH says...

"Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here?
"Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here? CJH
  • Score: -4

11:43am Thu 13 Mar 14

Paul Griffiths says...

No. Care to explain?
No. Care to explain? Paul Griffiths
  • Score: -3

11:54am Thu 13 Mar 14

CJH says...

Paul Griffiths wrote:
No. Care to explain?
Well if you insist, although it's hardly necessary is it? Flooding v swimming pool?
.
Perfectly entitled to disagree with me Paul. But I think you probably knew perfectly well what I meant, didn't you? ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Paul Griffiths[/bold] wrote: No. Care to explain?[/p][/quote]Well if you insist, although it's hardly necessary is it? Flooding v swimming pool? . Perfectly entitled to disagree with me Paul. But I think you probably knew perfectly well what I meant, didn't you? ;-) CJH
  • Score: 2

1:08pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Hwicce says...

I do rather despair of the Councillors who run the City; they seem totally out of touch with reality.

Who in their right mind thinks having another bridge in the centre of the City is a good idea when most, if not all, of Worcester’s traffic problems is having too much traffic coming into the centre and getting stuck in the mediaeval street layout we have?

As I’ve said previously putting “Upton/Bewdley” style barriers along North Parade, ans non-return valves on the drains around the Cattle Market and Newport Street would sort out the east side of the river. The west side would be sorted by raising the road on approach to the bridge and also raising New Road. None of these are technologically difficult and are going to be a fraction of the price of putting in a new bridge.

Is it a requirement of becoming a Councillor to have all common sense removed on election?
I do rather despair of the Councillors who run the City; they seem totally out of touch with reality. Who in their right mind thinks having another bridge in the centre of the City is a good idea when most, if not all, of Worcester’s traffic problems is having too much traffic coming into the centre and getting stuck in the mediaeval street layout we have? As I’ve said previously putting “Upton/Bewdley” style barriers along North Parade, ans non-return valves on the drains around the Cattle Market and Newport Street would sort out the east side of the river. The west side would be sorted by raising the road on approach to the bridge and also raising New Road. None of these are technologically difficult and are going to be a fraction of the price of putting in a new bridge. Is it a requirement of becoming a Councillor to have all common sense removed on election? Hwicce
  • Score: 7

1:31pm Thu 13 Mar 14

3thinker says...

CJH wrote:
"Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here?
Nope. I think you have misunderstood who's responsible for what.

The City Council wants a new bridge, but Highways is a matter for the County Council.

Its the County Council not the City that has ruled out a new bridge.

The City Council is responsible for Leisure including swimming pools. They are still looking at this.

So much for the "Single Voice' that Councils and other Public Bodies in Worcestershire have said is essential.

To me there is a bigger irony. This lack of local agreement is yet another demonstration as to why the establishment of either one or two Unitary Councils are needed for Worcestershire. Instead of wasting do much time disagreeing we may get better decision making. It would also mean significant savings in councillor, senior officer and other costs and make it easier to drive further internal efficiencies and get better deals with contractors. Leicestershire are looking at joining the Metropolitan Councils and other Counties that have already merged to form Unitaries. They estimate savings of £30M per annum. Surely our local politicians should be looking at this option first and before either making more cost or increasing the Council Tax?
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: "Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here?[/p][/quote]Nope. I think you have misunderstood who's responsible for what. The City Council wants a new bridge, but Highways is a matter for the County Council. Its the County Council not the City that has ruled out a new bridge. The City Council is responsible for Leisure including swimming pools. They are still looking at this. So much for the "Single Voice' that Councils and other Public Bodies in Worcestershire have said is essential. To me there is a bigger irony. This lack of local agreement is yet another demonstration as to why the establishment of either one or two Unitary Councils are needed for Worcestershire. Instead of wasting do much time disagreeing we may get better decision making. It would also mean significant savings in councillor, senior officer and other costs and make it easier to drive further internal efficiencies and get better deals with contractors. Leicestershire are looking at joining the Metropolitan Councils and other Counties that have already merged to form Unitaries. They estimate savings of £30M per annum. Surely our local politicians should be looking at this option first and before either making more cost or increasing the Council Tax? 3thinker
  • Score: 10

2:05pm Thu 13 Mar 14

CJH says...

3thinker wrote:
CJH wrote:
"Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here?
Nope. I think you have misunderstood who's responsible for what.

The City Council wants a new bridge, but Highways is a matter for the County Council.

Its the County Council not the City that has ruled out a new bridge.

The City Council is responsible for Leisure including swimming pools. They are still looking at this.

So much for the "Single Voice' that Councils and other Public Bodies in Worcestershire have said is essential.

To me there is a bigger irony. This lack of local agreement is yet another demonstration as to why the establishment of either one or two Unitary Councils are needed for Worcestershire. Instead of wasting do much time disagreeing we may get better decision making. It would also mean significant savings in councillor, senior officer and other costs and make it easier to drive further internal efficiencies and get better deals with contractors. Leicestershire are looking at joining the Metropolitan Councils and other Counties that have already merged to form Unitaries. They estimate savings of £30M per annum. Surely our local politicians should be looking at this option first and before either making more cost or increasing the Council Tax?
I understand they're different authorities. Regardless, we are at the bottom of the pile being sat on by both of them. Put all the money together, put people in charge who know what they are doing and understand they are working FOR us, not against us. Too many people protecting their own little corner of city and county councils and not wanting to see the bigger picture. Time to stop that now.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: "Plea for second Worcester city bridge ruled out by council's leadership". But they are seriously considering a new swimming pool? Anyone else see the irony here?[/p][/quote]Nope. I think you have misunderstood who's responsible for what. The City Council wants a new bridge, but Highways is a matter for the County Council. Its the County Council not the City that has ruled out a new bridge. The City Council is responsible for Leisure including swimming pools. They are still looking at this. So much for the "Single Voice' that Councils and other Public Bodies in Worcestershire have said is essential. To me there is a bigger irony. This lack of local agreement is yet another demonstration as to why the establishment of either one or two Unitary Councils are needed for Worcestershire. Instead of wasting do much time disagreeing we may get better decision making. It would also mean significant savings in councillor, senior officer and other costs and make it easier to drive further internal efficiencies and get better deals with contractors. Leicestershire are looking at joining the Metropolitan Councils and other Counties that have already merged to form Unitaries. They estimate savings of £30M per annum. Surely our local politicians should be looking at this option first and before either making more cost or increasing the Council Tax?[/p][/quote]I understand they're different authorities. Regardless, we are at the bottom of the pile being sat on by both of them. Put all the money together, put people in charge who know what they are doing and understand they are working FOR us, not against us. Too many people protecting their own little corner of city and county councils and not wanting to see the bigger picture. Time to stop that now. CJH
  • Score: 5

3:07pm Thu 13 Mar 14

PrivateSi says...

The financial priorities of the council are certainly odd, to say the least, given the recent proposals they're promoting.. Swimming Pool!? Huge housing developments? Yet another road bridge is one of the main things Worcester needs to aid commuting, keep lorries away from the center etc... Even EVESHAM has 2 road bridges over the river (FINALLY, AGAIN!)... Oh Worcester, what a joke of once great city...
The financial priorities of the council are certainly odd, to say the least, given the recent proposals they're promoting.. Swimming Pool!? Huge housing developments? Yet another road bridge is one of the main things Worcester needs to aid commuting, keep lorries away from the center etc... Even EVESHAM has 2 road bridges over the river (FINALLY, AGAIN!)... Oh Worcester, what a joke of once great city... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Thu 13 Mar 14

althom says...

It's not in the City that a new bridge is needed, but to the north of the City where the northern ring road should be built to relieve the traffic in the centre of Worcester! The majority of Worcester residents know this but the council just doesn't want to know. Why???
It's not in the City that a new bridge is needed, but to the north of the City where the northern ring road should be built to relieve the traffic in the centre of Worcester! The majority of Worcester residents know this but the council just doesn't want to know. Why??? althom
  • Score: 20

3:44pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Pir8pete says...

Agree with Althom, the northern link road is becoming essential, especially when at rush hour it takes as long to get from St Johns to J7, than it does to get from J7 halway down the M40! This would also help during flooding because if the city bridge is closed then there are two options to get to the other side, not just the idiocy of a single lane of traffic over the new bridge.
Agree with Althom, the northern link road is becoming essential, especially when at rush hour it takes as long to get from St Johns to J7, than it does to get from J7 halway down the M40! This would also help during flooding because if the city bridge is closed then there are two options to get to the other side, not just the idiocy of a single lane of traffic over the new bridge. Pir8pete
  • Score: 15

3:51pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Paul Griffiths says...

@ CJH

I couldn't disagree with you because I didn't understand you. I still don't. I guess my irony detector is broken.
@ CJH I couldn't disagree with you because I didn't understand you. I still don't. I guess my irony detector is broken. Paul Griffiths
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Jabbadad says...

Or just being pedantic. Paul not like you!!!.
Or just being pedantic. Paul not like you!!!. Jabbadad
  • Score: -3

6:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

grumpy woman says...

Unbelievable. Ivory towers. This is as much about traffic as flooding. There is something corrupt here. Who does not want the northern link road.
Unbelievable. Ivory towers. This is as much about traffic as flooding. There is something corrupt here. Who does not want the northern link road. grumpy woman
  • Score: -6

2:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Marant says...

Me - I don't want the northern link road. And no, I don't live near any area that would be directly impacted. I just think it's incredibly short sighted and will result in traffic chaos to the north and south once the land inside it is built up - which it would be. Building more roads does not reduce traffic problems. Removing the need to travel does. More employment land and incentives for Worcester, not more residential development. Stop the employment land allocation all being snapped up by the Black Country - that's what's happening. They want to turn us into a sleeper settlement for them. Didn't you see the '4000 more new homes to be added to South Worcestershire' headlines a while back? That's because our allocation of employment land was taken by the Black Country and we got more of their houses. Our politicians failed to argue successfully for us to keep the employment land.

Raising the road through along new Road is the best and cheapest idea.
Me - I don't want the northern link road. And no, I don't live near any area that would be directly impacted. I just think it's incredibly short sighted and will result in traffic chaos to the north and south once the land inside it is built up - which it would be. Building more roads does not reduce traffic problems. Removing the need to travel does. More employment land and incentives for Worcester, not more residential development. Stop the employment land allocation all being snapped up by the Black Country - that's what's happening. They want to turn us into a sleeper settlement for them. Didn't you see the '4000 more new homes to be added to South Worcestershire' headlines a while back? That's because our allocation of employment land was taken by the Black Country and we got more of their houses. Our politicians failed to argue successfully for us to keep the employment land. Raising the road through along new Road is the best and cheapest idea. Marant
  • Score: -1

9:26am Wed 19 Mar 14

High Time says...

grumpy woman wrote:
Unbelievable. Ivory towers. This is as much about traffic as flooding. There is something corrupt here. Who does not want the northern link road.
I don't. More roads more houses more cars its a never ending story.
[quote][p][bold]grumpy woman[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable. Ivory towers. This is as much about traffic as flooding. There is something corrupt here. Who does not want the northern link road.[/p][/quote]I don't. More roads more houses more cars its a never ending story. High Time
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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