Revealed: £63m bid to dual Worcester's notorious Carrington Bridge

Worcester's A4440 Carrington Bridge, in south Worcester

Worcester's A4440 Carrington Bridge, in south Worcester

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

A £63 million pound bid to finally dual Worcester's notorious Carrington Bridge has been made to the Government, it has emerged.

If successful the cash could resolve south Worcester's traffic problems by 2020, ending years of fury from drivers.

Your Worcester News can reveal how Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has gone cap-in-hand in an attempt to extract the money from a national £2 billion fund for economic growth.

It follows intense talks behind the scenes with leading businesses and councils in recent weeks to create a major investment blueprint for the whole county.

The county council will add £7 million into the pot to create a £70 million kitty, enough to do the job.

Last year Worcestershire County Council revealed a £38 million plan to part-dual the rest of the A4440 Southern Link Road, but not actual the bridge.

Under an existing schedule, depending on getting Government and private sector contributions the part-dualling will finish by 2018.

Since then the council has continuously argued the costs of "finishing the job" by dualling Carrington Bridge are too high to commit to it with county taxpayers money.

But the Government has since dangled a carrot in front of LEPs by asking them to develop their own growth blueprints, known as Strategic Economic Plans, saying they will hand out £2 billion towards the best ideas.

Worcestershire's plan, which was sent to the Government this week, now includes a complete dualling of the entire bridge.

The bridge was built in 1984 and since the 1990s it has caused drivers misery, with many critics saying it is not fit-for-purpose.

A helping hand from the Government would transform the situation, with two lanes running in both directions.

Councillor Simon Geraghty, county council deputy leader and cabinet member for economy, skills and infrastructure, said: "The Carrington Bridge is the last piece in the jigsaw.

"We've had a long-term ambition to get it done, it's a dualling of the whole bridge we are asking for.

"We know it's a competitive process but it's clear the serious money will go to those areas which can use the funds to unlock barriers to growth."

As part of the A4440 overhaul on Sunday, April 27 the county council is starting a year-long £8 million scheme on the Ketch roundabout off the A38.

It will lead to the island doubling in size and see a new slip road created for drivers turning left at the roundabout coming from Bath Road.

The entire link is used by around 30,000 cars a day.

The Government is expected to start allocating LEPs some early money from its £2 billion fund by December, at the time of the 2014 autumn statement.

Worcester MP Robin Walker said: "It's exactly what I've been calling for and now its in the plan, it's very useful for me in terms of putting the case to transport ministers, we want that bridge dualled.

"Getting this down as an objective for the whole county is great news."

SO WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE PLAN INCLUDE?

THE full blueprint for how Worcestershire could create 25,000 new jobs has been revealed - in the hope it could result in £250 million of Government funding.

A 180-page dossier for how the county aims to grow over the next 10 years has been published by Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership.

The long-awaited report reveals if successful, another £2.9 billion of economic activity would be generated by the investment.

The Strategic Economic Plan calls for:

- A new pedestrian river crossing in Worcester, running from Gheluvelt Park to Kepax Country Park

- Funds to finally build Worcestershire Parkway, at Norton, including a dedicated Worcester shuttle bus to take city residents to the site

- Improvements to the Cotswold Line so train journeys from Worcester to London take less than two hours by 2016

- An extra £4 million to develop Pershore College, making it a national centre of excellence for rural innovation

- 1,000 more apprenticeships and money to promote Worcester Technology Park, off Junction 6 of the M5

- Another £4 million towards better flood protection, broadband coverage and water supplies

- £14 million towards improving careers services for young people, employment hubs which promote work opportunities, and projects to better link businesses with colleges

- A contribution to the £6 million needed to reconfigure the Junction 6 exit of the M5 in Worcester so it gets less congested at peak times

- 10 per cent of all Government further education spending in Worcestershire to be ring-fenced to specifically improve skills on maths, science, technology and engineering

The plan was submitted to the Government this week just in time for the national deadline.

Peter Pawsey, chairman of the LEP, is also meeting Prime Minister David Cameron in Manchester today (Thursday) to lobby him on it.

Although it is unlikely the county will get everything it is asking for, hopes are high it will get a substantial sum.

He said: "When we came in three years ago we knew we had to raise the profile of Worcester and Worcestershire, and people have now got that message.

"There's a real drive, the place has been woken up and this plan is what Worcestershire needs."

It was put together after input from more than 150 organisations as well as all of Worcestershire's councils and MPs.

The £2 billion fund faces competitive bids from 39 LEPS around the country.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:00pm Thu 3 Apr 14

I'm_not_bitter says...

"... see a new slip road created for drivers turning left at the roundabout coming from Bath Road. "

The standards of this "newspaper" are getting lower and lower. I don't know how to get this into the heads of the muppets who write these stories but there is no slip road. Just look at the plans - something you might think a journalist writing about it might have managed as part of their research?

This has been pointed out every time a WN "journalist" has written it on here BUT they must be too arrogant or stupid or busy (!) to bother to read their own pages.

And if they can't get the facts correct from published plans, what hope is there that the rest of the "facts" in the story that I don't already know are correct?
"... see a new slip road created for drivers turning left at the roundabout coming from Bath Road. " The standards of this "newspaper" are getting lower and lower. I don't know how to get this into the heads of the muppets who write these stories but there is no slip road. Just look at the plans - something you might think a journalist writing about it might have managed as part of their research? This has been pointed out every time a WN "journalist" has written it on here BUT they must be too arrogant or stupid or busy (!) to bother to read their own pages. And if they can't get the facts correct from published plans, what hope is there that the rest of the "facts" in the story that I don't already know are correct? I'm_not_bitter
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Newspaper reader1982 says...

Er, hate to tell you this but the drawings were updated a while ago with a slip road part of the plan, I'm_not_bitter. Just a guess bit maybe that's why WN is ignoring you?
On another point these 'plans' sound good but nothing will happen unless Government wake up. Should have had this route sorted years ago!!
Er, hate to tell you this but the drawings were updated a while ago with a slip road part of the plan, I'm_not_bitter. Just a guess bit maybe that's why WN is ignoring you? On another point these 'plans' sound good but nothing will happen unless Government wake up. Should have had this route sorted years ago!! Newspaper reader1982
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Pangy says...

How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now. Pangy
  • Score: 9

8:29pm Thu 3 Apr 14

CYNIC_AL says...

£63million? Isn't that how much the council blew on the big gold library?
£63million? Isn't that how much the council blew on the big gold library? CYNIC_AL
  • Score: -7

9:11pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Small Town says...

This is a really stupid scheme. It can't possibly make any difference to the delays from Malvern/Hereford, because the problem isn't the bridge it's the roundabout at the Norton end of St.Peters Drive where the dual carriageway is forced to narrow due to the nearby houses.

We all know what problems will be caused by this scheme if it gets the green light, more than half the traffic now forced to use the southern ring road wants to go north and should be on the northern ring road. It really is the elephant in the room and could be built if all the housing developers had to pay a special levy in return for the bonanza they currently enjoy. Widening the bridge and dual tracking the whole stretch we simple encourage more vehicles to use this already over run single corridor.

I just hope that this time around, for any such hair-brain bridge widening scheme, the public get to engage in a REAL "consultation", for such a scheme is NOT being funded by the developers and that it will be our taxpayers money being wasted. Is for example the relative peace enjoyed by the camp/caravan site and marina below the bridge really worth sacrificing just to shave a few minutes off commuter's journeys - I think NOT.
This is a really stupid scheme. It can't possibly make any difference to the delays from Malvern/Hereford, because the problem isn't the bridge it's the roundabout at the Norton end of St.Peters Drive where the dual carriageway is forced to narrow due to the nearby houses. We all know what problems will be caused by this scheme if it gets the green light, more than half the traffic now forced to use the southern ring road wants to go north and should be on the northern ring road. It really is the elephant in the room and could be built if all the housing developers had to pay a special levy in return for the bonanza they currently enjoy. Widening the bridge and dual tracking the whole stretch we simple encourage more vehicles to use this already over run single corridor. I just hope that this time around, for any such hair-brain bridge widening scheme, the public get to engage in a REAL "consultation", for such a scheme is NOT being funded by the developers and that it will be our taxpayers money being wasted. Is for example the relative peace enjoyed by the camp/caravan site and marina below the bridge really worth sacrificing just to shave a few minutes off commuter's journeys - I think NOT. Small Town
  • Score: 1

9:12pm Thu 3 Apr 14

MrAnalysis says...

Just make a dedicated bus route in and out of Worcester. Oh and ban cyclists. Problem solved.
Just make a dedicated bus route in and out of Worcester. Oh and ban cyclists. Problem solved. MrAnalysis
  • Score: -15

10:01pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
[quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge? Guy66
  • Score: 7

10:03pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

Guy66 wrote:
Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?[/p][/quote]I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers? Guy66
  • Score: -5

10:45pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Old Uncle says...

When and if they build the bridge, will they essentially build a second bridge right next to the original one so that the traffic flow (such as it is) will continue unimpeded? Or will they make the current bridge one way with those wonderful sets of temporary traffic lights while they "upgrade"?.
Just wondering.
When and if they build the bridge, will they essentially build a second bridge right next to the original one so that the traffic flow (such as it is) will continue unimpeded? Or will they make the current bridge one way with those wonderful sets of temporary traffic lights while they "upgrade"?. Just wondering. Old Uncle
  • Score: 3

11:28pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Twisty says...

Old Uncle wrote:
When and if they build the bridge, will they essentially build a second bridge right next to the original one so that the traffic flow (such as it is) will continue unimpeded? Or will they make the current bridge one way with those wonderful sets of temporary traffic lights while they "upgrade"?.
Just wondering.
An excellent question......!
[quote][p][bold]Old Uncle[/bold] wrote: When and if they build the bridge, will they essentially build a second bridge right next to the original one so that the traffic flow (such as it is) will continue unimpeded? Or will they make the current bridge one way with those wonderful sets of temporary traffic lights while they "upgrade"?. Just wondering.[/p][/quote]An excellent question......! Twisty
  • Score: 3

11:29pm Thu 3 Apr 14

3thinker says...

MrAnalysis wrote:
Just make a dedicated bus route in and out of Worcester. Oh and ban cyclists. Problem solved.
Obviously no no rational analysis from Mr Analysis.

Cyclists actually reduce congestion and free up City Centre parking spaces.

They also reduce pollution and live healthier lifestyles rather than clogging up the NHS with preventable health problems.
[quote][p][bold]MrAnalysis[/bold] wrote: Just make a dedicated bus route in and out of Worcester. Oh and ban cyclists. Problem solved.[/p][/quote]Obviously no no rational analysis from Mr Analysis. Cyclists actually reduce congestion and free up City Centre parking spaces. They also reduce pollution and live healthier lifestyles rather than clogging up the NHS with preventable health problems. 3thinker
  • Score: -4

11:40pm Thu 3 Apr 14

3thinker says...

Guy66 wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?
83% of cyclists are car drivers.

Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces.

As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other.

Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?[/p][/quote]I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?[/p][/quote]83% of cyclists are car drivers. Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces. As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other. Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle? 3thinker
  • Score: 5

12:57am Fri 4 Apr 14

chrism says...

I'm not Darren or i-cycle, but I'll comment (as I sometimes do on cycling stuff).

Building cycling provision helps reduce congestion, saves far more money than it costs to build and has a variety of other benefits including reducing air pollution and improving health. This is far from a load of untested optimism - it has been proven in Holland in numerous studies.

I couldn't agree more with pangy's suggestion, however it needs to be done properly with a decent width and construction which won't fall apart at the first frost - to be fair a lot of the more recent stuff such as the cycle path around the most recently built part of the ring road is actually quite good. Not only that, but they need to make the junctions a lot more friendly for cyclists with better priority - the idea being to make it more convenient to cycle rather than cyclists having to give way all the time as happens now. The point of doing this is to get ordinary people to cycle, as they do in Holland - as an enthusiast I'm not asking for this for me but for all the current non-cyclists to encourage them to cycle rather than use a car. To follow the full Dutch model such paths should also have decent separation from the road as one of the biggest factors preventing people cycling is the perceived danger which is substantially reduced when cyclists are separated from cars. For all the sceptics, it needs pointing out that there is nothing special about the Dutch - they were as much in love with the car there as we are here before the cycling infrastructure programme started. The sooner we start something similar in this country the better for everybody - cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, business.

Though away from the cycling advocacy, I have to also agree with Small Town that dualling the bridge will not solve the problem as IME the road always jams up to the Norton roundabout as he suggests. If this is to happen it needs to be part of a proper coordinated improvement of the road, focused on making the junctions free-flowing for traffic on the ring road. This will of course involve demolishing and rebuilding the current rebuild of the Ketch roundabout which will itself even in the rebuilt form become a bottleneck (the first couple of comments mention what I think is the biggest mistake - giving Bath road it's own slip road onto the ring road funnels extra traffic into the current bottleneck from a currently relatively uncongested direction). Because as 3thinker points out, I am both a cyclist and a motorist and often I need to get somewhere which is too far to cycle, so spend plenty of my life stuck in the traffic jams.
I'm not Darren or i-cycle, but I'll comment (as I sometimes do on cycling stuff). Building cycling provision helps reduce congestion, saves far more money than it costs to build and has a variety of other benefits including reducing air pollution and improving health. This is far from a load of untested optimism - it has been proven in Holland in numerous studies. I couldn't agree more with pangy's suggestion, however it needs to be done properly with a decent width and construction which won't fall apart at the first frost - to be fair a lot of the more recent stuff such as the cycle path around the most recently built part of the ring road is actually quite good. Not only that, but they need to make the junctions a lot more friendly for cyclists with better priority - the idea being to make it more convenient to cycle rather than cyclists having to give way all the time as happens now. The point of doing this is to get ordinary people to cycle, as they do in Holland - as an enthusiast I'm not asking for this for me but for all the current non-cyclists to encourage them to cycle rather than use a car. To follow the full Dutch model such paths should also have decent separation from the road as one of the biggest factors preventing people cycling is the perceived danger which is substantially reduced when cyclists are separated from cars. For all the sceptics, it needs pointing out that there is nothing special about the Dutch - they were as much in love with the car there as we are here before the cycling infrastructure programme started. The sooner we start something similar in this country the better for everybody - cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, business. Though away from the cycling advocacy, I have to also agree with Small Town that dualling the bridge will not solve the problem as IME the road always jams up to the Norton roundabout as he suggests. If this is to happen it needs to be part of a proper coordinated improvement of the road, focused on making the junctions free-flowing for traffic on the ring road. This will of course involve demolishing and rebuilding the current rebuild of the Ketch roundabout which will itself even in the rebuilt form become a bottleneck (the first couple of comments mention what I think is the biggest mistake - giving Bath road it's own slip road onto the ring road funnels extra traffic into the current bottleneck from a currently relatively uncongested direction). Because as 3thinker points out, I am both a cyclist and a motorist and often I need to get somewhere which is too far to cycle, so spend plenty of my life stuck in the traffic jams. chrism
  • Score: -1

1:02am Fri 4 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

Now we are aware that a FURTHER £108 millions is to be spent on the Southern Link Road, when this ammount would have previously built the Northern Link and a bridge, but with what now appears to be deliberate political pandering to those in St Clements, Hallow and Claines by the politicians now including Robin Walker, Worcester will slowly come to be traffic jammed as it was in the 1960's when we sat for 35 minutes and more in and around the Trinity and the cross (which had Police on Traffic control Duty on all the road junctions on the Cross) while we attempted to cross over to St Johns which had the City Centre a traffic NO-GO- AREA..
Do we really want Gareghty and the Tories to take us back to those days?
Because that is where we are heading.
And is this in Tory democratic style yet another decision taken BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?
Now we are aware that a FURTHER £108 millions is to be spent on the Southern Link Road, when this ammount would have previously built the Northern Link and a bridge, but with what now appears to be deliberate political pandering to those in St Clements, Hallow and Claines by the politicians now including Robin Walker, Worcester will slowly come to be traffic jammed as it was in the 1960's when we sat for 35 minutes and more in and around the Trinity and the cross (which had Police on Traffic control Duty on all the road junctions on the Cross) while we attempted to cross over to St Johns which had the City Centre a traffic NO-GO- AREA.. Do we really want Gareghty and the Tories to take us back to those days? Because that is where we are heading. And is this in Tory democratic style yet another decision taken BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? Jabbadad
  • Score: 5

1:25am Fri 4 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

3thinker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?
83% of cyclists are car drivers.

Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces.

As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other.

Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?
It doesn't bother me much about what happens with the ring road as long as the existing route is maintained and reasonable crossing points are provided.

I find that even at rush hour the traffic congestion doesn't really impact much on journey times. Its almost always far quicker to get around the city on a bike

I can understand the frustration of motorists, but if more walked, cycled or caught the bus for those shorter journeys the congestion would decrease.

I cycle because it makes sense in time, health and cost terms. In doing so I free up road and parking space. The main concern is the irrational antagonism and lack of consideration shown by a few (and it is a few) drivers even when I do my best to abide by the law and Highway Code and be considerate to there road users.

I'm sure its this sort of inconsiderate attitude on the part of some drivers that puts more off cycling due to the perceived danger. If all cyclists did the same and more motorists also stuck to the rules of the road then more would probably cycle thereby helping to reduce the grid lock that all too often faces the City.

It would be even better if the County Council took the decision to invest just a part of the £70M to provide safe and segregated cycle routes into and around the City, but that takes vision and understanding and its obvious from the girth of many of the key politicians at the County that they haven't been anywhere near a bike or for that matter a footpath or bus for many a year.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?[/p][/quote]I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?[/p][/quote]83% of cyclists are car drivers. Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces. As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other. Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?[/p][/quote]It doesn't bother me much about what happens with the ring road as long as the existing route is maintained and reasonable crossing points are provided. I find that even at rush hour the traffic congestion doesn't really impact much on journey times. Its almost always far quicker to get around the city on a bike I can understand the frustration of motorists, but if more walked, cycled or caught the bus for those shorter journeys the congestion would decrease. I cycle because it makes sense in time, health and cost terms. In doing so I free up road and parking space. The main concern is the irrational antagonism and lack of consideration shown by a few (and it is a few) drivers even when I do my best to abide by the law and Highway Code and be considerate to there road users. I'm sure its this sort of inconsiderate attitude on the part of some drivers that puts more off cycling due to the perceived danger. If all cyclists did the same and more motorists also stuck to the rules of the road then more would probably cycle thereby helping to reduce the grid lock that all too often faces the City. It would be even better if the County Council took the decision to invest just a part of the £70M to provide safe and segregated cycle routes into and around the City, but that takes vision and understanding and its obvious from the girth of many of the key politicians at the County that they haven't been anywhere near a bike or for that matter a footpath or bus for many a year. i-cycle
  • Score: -2

8:33am Fri 4 Apr 14

pudniw_gib says...

Building more and wider roads isnt the answer, they always fill up and grind to a halt so the moaning starts again.
Reaching a critical mass of people cycling into work for instance will take a while but it will happen sooner if new roads are not built and cycling is made easier and safer for those that chose to do it.
Anyone who has tried to negotiate the large Powick roundabout will know how terrible provision for cyclists can get. It is a deterrent to people thinking of pedalling into Worcester on the A449. It is either very slow negotiating the crossings, not all of which are controlled, or very dangerous to ride through the traffic.
The various paths are in poor condition and often have glass, debris and grit on them.
I am an experienced cyclist and have some experience in cycle coaching, but really avoid this route into Worcester. The Carrington Bridge end will no doubt get the same problems and further reduce the numbers of potential cycle commuters willing to risk it.
Building more and wider roads isnt the answer, they always fill up and grind to a halt so the moaning starts again. Reaching a critical mass of people cycling into work for instance will take a while but it will happen sooner if new roads are not built and cycling is made easier and safer for those that chose to do it. Anyone who has tried to negotiate the large Powick roundabout will know how terrible provision for cyclists can get. It is a deterrent to people thinking of pedalling into Worcester [ or out ] on the A449. It is either very slow negotiating the crossings, not all of which are controlled, or very dangerous to ride through the traffic. The various paths are in poor condition and often have glass, debris and grit on them. I am an experienced cyclist and have some experience in cycle coaching, but really avoid this route into Worcester. The Carrington Bridge end will no doubt get the same problems and further reduce the numbers of potential cycle commuters willing to risk it. pudniw_gib
  • Score: -7

8:48am Fri 4 Apr 14

thesquirrel says...

Big party round my house if we get trains to London in less than two hours and Worcestershire Parkway.
Big party round my house if we get trains to London in less than two hours and Worcestershire Parkway. thesquirrel
  • Score: 9

8:51am Fri 4 Apr 14

I'm_not_bitter says...

Newspaper reader1982 wrote:
Er, hate to tell you this but the drawings were updated a while ago with a slip road part of the plan, I'm_not_bitter. Just a guess bit maybe that's why WN is ignoring you?
On another point these 'plans' sound good but nothing will happen unless Government wake up. Should have had this route sorted years ago!!
I'd be very interested to see your source for that Newspaper reader1982 because I can find no mention of it on WCC website and it would require a major change to the consultation plans.
[quote][p][bold]Newspaper reader1982[/bold] wrote: Er, hate to tell you this but the drawings were updated a while ago with a slip road part of the plan, I'm_not_bitter. Just a guess bit maybe that's why WN is ignoring you? On another point these 'plans' sound good but nothing will happen unless Government wake up. Should have had this route sorted years ago!![/p][/quote]I'd be very interested to see your source for that Newspaper reader1982 because I can find no mention of it on WCC website and it would require a major change to the consultation plans. I'm_not_bitter
  • Score: -1

10:15am Fri 4 Apr 14

dulon says...

I just think that the increase in the flow of traffic across the river will result in moving the jams somewhere else ! Powick springs to mind and so too does Redhill whittington and bransford .
A northern relief road would be nice but where would it start ? We already have almighty delays at Sixways so do we move it down to Bevere or Northwick ? This discussion originally started on the proposal to 'dual' the southern link a moral argument about the joys of cycling is going off track .
But just my tuppenorth would be to introduce A 'CONGESTION CHARGE WITHIN THE CITY ?
I just think that the increase in the flow of traffic across the river will result in moving the jams somewhere else ! Powick springs to mind and so too does Redhill whittington and bransford . A northern relief road would be nice but where would it start ? We already have almighty delays at Sixways so do we move it down to Bevere or Northwick ? This discussion originally started on the proposal to 'dual' the southern link a moral argument about the joys of cycling is going off track . But just my tuppenorth would be to introduce A 'CONGESTION CHARGE WITHIN THE CITY ? dulon
  • Score: -2

10:31am Fri 4 Apr 14

CJH says...

No-one is allowed to build anything at Bevere or Northwick. The local lords of the manor don't want to be disturbed from their reveries in cloud cuckoo land...
No-one is allowed to build anything at Bevere or Northwick. The local lords of the manor don't want to be disturbed from their reveries in cloud cuckoo land... CJH
  • Score: 5

10:36am Fri 4 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

dulon wrote:
I just think that the increase in the flow of traffic across the river will result in moving the jams somewhere else ! Powick springs to mind and so too does Redhill whittington and bransford .
A northern relief road would be nice but where would it start ? We already have almighty delays at Sixways so do we move it down to Bevere or Northwick ? This discussion originally started on the proposal to 'dual' the southern link a moral argument about the joys of cycling is going off track .
But just my tuppenorth would be to introduce A 'CONGESTION CHARGE WITHIN THE CITY ?
It may surprise some, but I agree with Dulon.

As long as the current cycleway is maintained and improved crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists are provided over a dualled southern ring road (including Powick) that's all that's needed. As 'at grade' Toucan crossings can cost c.£300k to install the cost of providing a pedestrian and cycle bridge isn't much more expensive.

The biggest priority for improving cycle facilities and encourage more to leave their cars at home is to provide well designed and safer routes into and around the City. They already exist along some key corridors so again the cost wouldn't be massive when compared to the cost of road improvements. The main problems are safe east west routes on the western side of the river and to find routes through the city centre.

I'll resist the temptation to agree on a congestion charge, lest this results in me being labeled as anti-car…..which I'm not.
[quote][p][bold]dulon[/bold] wrote: I just think that the increase in the flow of traffic across the river will result in moving the jams somewhere else ! Powick springs to mind and so too does Redhill whittington and bransford . A northern relief road would be nice but where would it start ? We already have almighty delays at Sixways so do we move it down to Bevere or Northwick ? This discussion originally started on the proposal to 'dual' the southern link a moral argument about the joys of cycling is going off track . But just my tuppenorth would be to introduce A 'CONGESTION CHARGE WITHIN THE CITY ?[/p][/quote]It may surprise some, but I agree with Dulon. As long as the current cycleway is maintained and improved crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists are provided over a dualled southern ring road (including Powick) that's all that's needed. As 'at grade' Toucan crossings can cost c.£300k to install the cost of providing a pedestrian and cycle bridge isn't much more expensive. The biggest priority for improving cycle facilities and encourage more to leave their cars at home is to provide well designed and safer routes into and around the City. They already exist along some key corridors so again the cost wouldn't be massive when compared to the cost of road improvements. The main problems are safe east west routes on the western side of the river and to find routes through the city centre. I'll resist the temptation to agree on a congestion charge, lest this results in me being labeled as anti-car…..which I'm not. i-cycle
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 4 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

Now in today's Worcester News, we read that the government inspector is demanding 28,000 more homes to be built here in South Worcestershire. Where oh where are the roads and other services coming from.
And anyone who opposes the Northern Link has to be a Tory politician pandering to their voters at any cost, or a very selfish person defending just the views over there back garden fences, plain stupid or a combination of all three.
We need a Public debate on this issue and fast.
We may not See Gareghty and the Tories rushing for such a debate so why not the Worcester News, make sure you have a large venue.
Now in today's Worcester News, we read that the government inspector is demanding 28,000 more homes to be built here in South Worcestershire. Where oh where are the roads and other services coming from. And anyone who opposes the Northern Link has to be a Tory politician pandering to their voters at any cost, or a very selfish person defending just the views over there back garden fences, plain stupid or a combination of all three. We need a Public debate on this issue and fast. We may not See Gareghty and the Tories rushing for such a debate so why not the Worcester News, make sure you have a large venue. Jabbadad
  • Score: 2

11:48am Fri 4 Apr 14

liloliluk says...

If they build a new road bridge to the north of the city surely that would lessen the need to dual the Carrington Bridge?
If they build a new road bridge to the north of the city surely that would lessen the need to dual the Carrington Bridge? liloliluk
  • Score: 4

12:19pm Fri 4 Apr 14

skychip says...

It needs thrashing out at a public meeting but then at the end of the day how many would come.
It needs thrashing out at a public meeting but then at the end of the day how many would come. skychip
  • Score: -1

5:23pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Roger5 says...

Landowner interests north of Worcester must not be allowed to dominate the economic prospects of this region, not just Worcester but also Hereford's prospects are stagnating, whilst short-term tactical and frankly wasteful modifications to the Southern link are being made. Worcester CC stop tinkering and doing secret deals with developers, get together with Herefordshire CC and get a European economic development grant to fund the REAL solution we all know is needed! For heaven's sake get off your hands and do something genuinely strategic. It is only common sense e.g. new cider production in Hereford? How will their extra lorries get to M5? Technology parks in Worcester and Malvern? Drivers all jammed at the Ketch? Get real!
Landowner interests north of Worcester must not be allowed to dominate the economic prospects of this region, not just Worcester but also Hereford's prospects are stagnating, whilst short-term tactical and frankly wasteful modifications to the Southern link are being made. Worcester CC stop tinkering and doing secret deals with developers, get together with Herefordshire CC and get a European economic development grant to fund the REAL solution we all know is needed! For heaven's sake get off your hands and do something genuinely strategic. It is only common sense e.g. new cider production in Hereford? How will their extra lorries get to M5? Technology parks in Worcester and Malvern? Drivers all jammed at the Ketch? Get real! Roger5
  • Score: 4

7:42pm Fri 4 Apr 14

copierman says...

1. I trust the new roundabout at the Ketch will have provision for the new bridge in its design and build?
2. What is the cost of completing the missing link on the Worcestershire ring road through Bevere & Clains compared to a 2nd bridge alongside the Carington bridge?
1. I trust the new roundabout at the Ketch will have provision for the new bridge in its design and build? 2. What is the cost of completing the missing link on the Worcestershire ring road through Bevere & Clains compared to a 2nd bridge alongside the Carington bridge? copierman
  • Score: 5

8:49pm Sat 5 Apr 14

old misery says...

Unless they incorporate "flyovers" at the roundabouts which cause the holdups it will be yet another waste of money
Unless they incorporate "flyovers" at the roundabouts which cause the holdups it will be yet another waste of money old misery
  • Score: 4

11:53pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

They will need flyovers at the two lane Carrington Bridge. Only idiotic planners don't see that no matter how many lanes you have when you come to a two lane bridge you funnell into two lanes. GET THE IDEA PLANNERS.
Same as the Hop Step & Jump Bus lane down Newtown Road which has to go through a SINGLE LANE BRIDGE.
They will need flyovers at the two lane Carrington Bridge. Only idiotic planners don't see that no matter how many lanes you have when you come to a two lane bridge you funnell into two lanes. GET THE IDEA PLANNERS. Same as the Hop Step & Jump Bus lane down Newtown Road which has to go through a SINGLE LANE BRIDGE. Jabbadad
  • Score: -1

10:25am Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Jabbadad wrote:
They will need flyovers at the two lane Carrington Bridge. Only idiotic planners don't see that no matter how many lanes you have when you come to a two lane bridge you funnell into two lanes. GET THE IDEA PLANNERS.
Same as the Hop Step & Jump Bus lane down Newtown Road which has to go through a SINGLE LANE BRIDGE.
Planners aren't responsible for roads. That's the job of Highways at the County.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: They will need flyovers at the two lane Carrington Bridge. Only idiotic planners don't see that no matter how many lanes you have when you come to a two lane bridge you funnell into two lanes. GET THE IDEA PLANNERS. Same as the Hop Step & Jump Bus lane down Newtown Road which has to go through a SINGLE LANE BRIDGE.[/p][/quote]Planners aren't responsible for roads. That's the job of Highways at the County. i-cycle
  • Score: 2

10:30am Sun 6 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

Do they not have planning among the staff at Highways??
Why don't you comment on the practical points in the posting.
Do they not have planning among the staff at Highways?? Why don't you comment on the practical points in the posting. Jabbadad
  • Score: -2

10:41am Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Do they not have planning among the staff at Highways??
Why don't you comment on the practical points in the posting.
Err…not really. They have a couple of staff that look at the highway implications of new development proposals submitted to the local District Councils, but I doubt they are planners and won't take the lead in deciding on the highway infrastructure.

Its actually quite unhelpful to post inaccurate comments as the public, like you, will think Worcester City and Malvern Hills have much of a say in all this. Highways are a County Council responsibility.

All this confusion over which tier of Government is responsible for what is yet another reason (apart from significant cost savings) who merging the district and county councils into one or two Unitary councils makes a lot of sense.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Do they not have planning among the staff at Highways?? Why don't you comment on the practical points in the posting.[/p][/quote]Err…not really. They have a couple of staff that look at the highway implications of new development proposals submitted to the local District Councils, but I doubt they are planners and won't take the lead in deciding on the highway infrastructure. Its actually quite unhelpful to post inaccurate comments as the public, like you, will think Worcester City and Malvern Hills have much of a say in all this. Highways are a County Council responsibility. All this confusion over which tier of Government is responsible for what is yet another reason (apart from significant cost savings) who merging the district and county councils into one or two Unitary councils makes a lot of sense. i-cycle
  • Score: 4

12:35pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

I also support Unitary Councils, but not those who have unchallengable control through politics. But then I support compuslary voting and Proportionate representation. Dream On Eh?
I also support Unitary Councils, but not those who have unchallengable control through politics. But then I support compuslary voting and Proportionate representation. Dream On Eh? Jabbadad
  • Score: -1

3:58pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

3thinker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?
83% of cyclists are car drivers.

Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces.

As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other.

Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?
Exactly, it is about time cyclists were more respectful of the law and took responsibility for their actions.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?[/p][/quote]I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?[/p][/quote]83% of cyclists are car drivers. Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces. As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other. Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?[/p][/quote]Exactly, it is about time cyclists were more respectful of the law and took responsibility for their actions. Guy66
  • Score: 3

4:42pm Sun 6 Apr 14

i-cycle says...

Guy66 wrote:
3thinker wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Pangy wrote:
How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river.

If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.
70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?
I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?
83% of cyclists are car drivers.

Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces.

As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other.

Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?
Exactly, it is about time cyclists were more respectful of the law and took responsibility for their actions.
I agree with you 100%.

In doing so I hope you agree that motorists should also do the same.

Instead of a "two tribes" us and them approach all road users will benefit from sharing our crowded highways with more consideration for other road users and in obeisance with the law.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pangy[/bold] wrote: How about using the money IF they get it to build the north ring road with a new bridge over the river. If this dual carriage way does go ahead I hope they incorporate a decent sized cycle path on BOTH sides of the carriage way and not one like they have now.[/p][/quote]70m for 'A' new bridge and you think they can use it to build 18 miles of dual road and a new bridge?[/p][/quote]I do hate to point out the second paragraph which I guess makes you a cyclist? Are you one of those unrealistic bunch who preach at car drivers?[/p][/quote]83% of cyclists are car drivers. Perhaps its you as well that needs to take a more rational and objective view and realise that more cyclists will actually reduce traffic congestion. Making better and safer provision to encourage more to cycle for some of those shorter car journeys (65% are less than 5 miles) is much cheaper and more cost effective than having to build more roads and parking spaces. As the CEO of the AA has repeatedly stated its about time that motorists and cyclists started to recognise the mutual benefits of sharing our overcrowded highways better and be more considerate to each other. Cue comment from Darren or i-cycle?[/p][/quote]Exactly, it is about time cyclists were more respectful of the law and took responsibility for their actions.[/p][/quote]I agree with you 100%. In doing so I hope you agree that motorists should also do the same. Instead of a "two tribes" us and them approach all road users will benefit from sharing our crowded highways with more consideration for other road users and in obeisance with the law. i-cycle
  • Score: 3

11:20pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

I-cycle I don't think you will find me associating the roads and planning with the City Council, if I have I apologise, since having spent some years associated with the Transport supremos, ( their own title) I have been in contact with those who actually do the work and that does not mean councilors who are a total hinderance, and who start or STOP proposals as in Geraghty's case. And frequently BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Perhaps that is why PINK PAPERS fly around councils.
I-cycle I don't think you will find me associating the roads and planning with the City Council, if I have I apologise, since having spent some years associated with the Transport supremos, ( their own title) I have been in contact with those who actually do the work and that does not mean councilors who are a total hinderance, and who start or STOP proposals as in Geraghty's case. And frequently BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Perhaps that is why PINK PAPERS fly around councils. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Roger5 says...

Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt!
Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt! Roger5
  • Score: 4

7:15pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Mcdonald45 says...

Roger5 wrote:
Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt!
The local residents whom it concerns were informed and invited over a week before the arranged date to go to the meeting. So just because the Worcester news gave you 4 days notice doesn't mean something is going on behind closed doors.

Also I believe no plans have been yet submitted to the city council.
[quote][p][bold]Roger5[/bold] wrote: Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt![/p][/quote]The local residents whom it concerns were informed and invited over a week before the arranged date to go to the meeting. So just because the Worcester news gave you 4 days notice doesn't mean something is going on behind closed doors. Also I believe no plans have been yet submitted to the city council. Mcdonald45
  • Score: 2

9:25pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

Macdonald 45, I think that with your insider information you are aware that Geraghty and Co have for some years opposed any discussions as to proposals of applying for funding for a Northern Bypass. So with the need being obvius to a majority of the population that we desperately need a bypass why is the opposition from County Hall so rigid, and continuing plans to spend up to £103 million on the southern link roads?
Macdonald 45, I think that with your insider information you are aware that Geraghty and Co have for some years opposed any discussions as to proposals of applying for funding for a Northern Bypass. So with the need being obvius to a majority of the population that we desperately need a bypass why is the opposition from County Hall so rigid, and continuing plans to spend up to £103 million on the southern link roads? Jabbadad
  • Score: 1

9:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

Roger5 says...

Mcdonald45 wrote:
Roger5 wrote:
Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt!
The local residents whom it concerns were informed and invited over a week before the arranged date to go to the meeting. So just because the Worcester news gave you 4 days notice doesn't mean something is going on behind closed doors.

Also I believe no plans have been yet submitted to the city council.
People living nearby the development are not the only people affected by houses being built. More houses means more traffic (often 2 cars per house), more pressure on local services such as schools and community health etc. It isn't just about what you can see out of your house window!

We need people including the local authority to think about impacts in their entirety, because only thinking about local issues for local people does not result in good decisions for the whole town/county.
[quote][p][bold]Mcdonald45[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roger5[/bold] wrote: Oh how interesting! Pegasus consultants are holding a public consultation meeting at the Swan Whittington (giving only *4* days' notice via WN) on Thurs 10 April 3 to 7:30 p.m. concerning development alongside Swineherds Way (approaching said bottleneck bridge) so this is how local democracy works now. 3rd parties paid to front up plans already discussed behind closed doors with local authority. Well worth a look to try and find out what might be planned: will be the usual 'artists' impressions' no doubt![/p][/quote]The local residents whom it concerns were informed and invited over a week before the arranged date to go to the meeting. So just because the Worcester news gave you 4 days notice doesn't mean something is going on behind closed doors. Also I believe no plans have been yet submitted to the city council.[/p][/quote]People living nearby the development are not the only people affected by houses being built. More houses means more traffic (often 2 cars per house), more pressure on local services such as schools and community health etc. It isn't just about what you can see out of your house window! We need people including the local authority to think about impacts in their entirety, because only thinking about local issues for local people does not result in good decisions for the whole town/county. Roger5
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Jabbadad says...

In today's Evening News the list of the £266 million plan to revamp roads and rail links NO mention of the Northern By-Pass.
WE need a public meeting about why the CONservative' s are seemingly deliberately not addressing the most important missing road link for Worcestershire, yet pumping more millions into the Southern Link system. Are the CONservatives above the law?
Why aren't they being challenged?
Is it yet more BEHIND CLOSED DOOR CONservative PRIVATE MEETINGS?
In today's Evening News the list of the £266 million plan to revamp roads and rail links NO mention of the Northern By-Pass. WE need a public meeting about why the CONservative' s are seemingly deliberately not addressing the most important missing road link for Worcestershire, yet pumping more millions into the Southern Link system. Are the CONservatives above the law? Why aren't they being challenged? Is it yet more BEHIND CLOSED DOOR CONservative PRIVATE MEETINGS? Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

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