Revealed: £266m transport revamp for Worcestershire

Malvern Gazette: Worcester congestion: plan to tackle it Worcester congestion: plan to tackle it

A £266 million plan to revamp roads and other forms of transport across Worcestershire can today be revealed - in a bid to finally solve the county's congestion headaches.

Business and council leaders have teamed together to draw up a blueprint of 19 major infrastructure revamps aimed for completion by 2021.

It includes bids of £173 million from central Government, and if accepted the likes of Worcestershire County Council and the Highways Agency will put the remaining £93 million into the kitty themselves.

It includes:

- £6 million towards street resurfacing in key shopping centres like Worcester, Malvern and Evesham to increase their appeal

- £17 million to finally build Worcestershire Parkway, a long-awaited railway station planned for Norton

- £56 million on reconfiguring the M5 Junction 6 to ease traffic build-up at peak times and prevent queues stretching back to the A449 in particular

- £4.8 million on building the Pershore Northern Link, including a bridge over the railway line in order to improve access between the A44 and the Keytec Business Park, and changes to Pinvin cross roads

- £11 million to widen roads and reconfigure key junctions to sites where large housing plots are expected to be built, including Newlands in Malvern, the west Worcester urban extension next to Dines Green and the Copcut in Droitwich

- £5 million to create special access to Worcester Technology Park off Junction 6 of the M5, and £1.75 million for better Malvern Hills Science Park access

- £2 million on a new pedestrian river crossing going from Worcester's Gheluvelt Park to old Kepax Country Park site behind Hallow Road, aimed at opening up more of the city to pedestrians and encouraging walking

- £10 million specifically towards road improvements around Evesham, which are expected to focus on the A46

- £5 million on flooding alleviation, which is expected to focus on New Road in Worcester and Upton-upon-Severn

Other projects include £24 million on improving the A38 in Bromsgrove, £5 million to improve Kidderminster railway station and the landscape around Comberton Hill, and £12.8 million on the Hoo Brook Link Road, also in Kidderminster.

It also includes funds towards the planned dualling of the A4440 Southern Link Road in Worcester, including £63 million on Carrington Bridge, as your Worcester News first revealed last week.

The entire package has been put together by Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), which is competing for Government handouts worth £2 billion every year between next April and 2020.

As your Worcester News revealed last week the plan, put together with input from all Worcestershire's councils, MPs and more than 150 organisations, totals bids worth £250 million, making transport more than half the total ask.

Peter Pawsey, LEP chairman, said: "This is the first step to securing major changes for the better to Worcestershire's physical infrastructure."

Councillor Simon Geraghty, county council deputy leader, said: "These aren't minor proposals, this is a real step-change for Worcestershire's future transport needs."

A first announcement by the Government on next year's successful bidders is due in July.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

CJH says...

This should be good news, so why do I have a feeling of impending doom?
This should be good news, so why do I have a feeling of impending doom? CJH
  • Score: 11

6:33pm Thu 10 Apr 14

b1ackb1rd says...

More traffic chaos. This money should be paid in compensation to motorists and businesses blighted by the current situation!
More traffic chaos. This money should be paid in compensation to motorists and businesses blighted by the current situation! b1ackb1rd
  • Score: -13

7:09pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Redhillman says...

It's all very well having this money, but we simply cannot rely on the highways department to spend this money wisely on schemes that will alleviate the notorious traffic and safety chaos on Worcester's roads and make them safe and motor vehicle-friendly. We'll instead end up with half-baked ideas that will have little or no improvement, will invariably be anti-car and will reduce road safety. And perhaps a few more bus lanes that go to nowhere will be added in to the equation too as will dangerously located zebra crossings.

Before a penny of this money is spent we need to ensure the highways department is rejigged from top to bottom and is staffed by people who know what they're doing, rather than the incompetent, overpaid and clueless oafs called highway engineers currently residing in County Hall. Or better still, hand the highways service over to the private sector where we will, finally, see massive improvements in the management of Worcester's road network.
It's all very well having this money, but we simply cannot rely on the highways department to spend this money wisely on schemes that will alleviate the notorious traffic and safety chaos on Worcester's roads and make them safe and motor vehicle-friendly. We'll instead end up with half-baked ideas that will have little or no improvement, will invariably be anti-car and will reduce road safety. And perhaps a few more bus lanes that go to nowhere will be added in to the equation too as will dangerously located zebra crossings. Before a penny of this money is spent we need to ensure the highways department is rejigged from top to bottom and is staffed by people who know what they're doing, rather than the incompetent, overpaid and clueless oafs called highway engineers currently residing in County Hall. Or better still, hand the highways service over to the private sector where we will, finally, see massive improvements in the management of Worcester's road network. Redhillman
  • Score: -3

7:15pm Thu 10 Apr 14

saucerer says...

Redhillman wrote:
It's all very well having this money, but we simply cannot rely on the highways department to spend this money wisely on schemes that will alleviate the notorious traffic and safety chaos on Worcester's roads and make them safe and motor vehicle-friendly. We'll instead end up with half-baked ideas that will have little or no improvement, will invariably be anti-car and will reduce road safety. And perhaps a few more bus lanes that go to nowhere will be added in to the equation too as will dangerously located zebra crossings.

Before a penny of this money is spent we need to ensure the highways department is rejigged from top to bottom and is staffed by people who know what they're doing, rather than the incompetent, overpaid and clueless oafs called highway engineers currently residing in County Hall. Or better still, hand the highways service over to the private sector where we will, finally, see massive improvements in the management of Worcester's road network.
Well, it seems that there is one glimmer of hope in the highways department improving, or at least finally taking a step in the right direction. Peter Blake, the head of the highways department, is leaving! It's been clear for all to see that under his tenure, Worcestershire's roads have been poorly managed and designed. There have been so many c*ck-ups and errors of judgement while he's been in charge so I for one won;t be shedding a tear when he leaves.

But his departure is now a prime opportunity for much needed, and massive, changes to be made to this department, right from the top down, and it's also an ideal opportunity to finally introduce the private sector in the running of highways where we'll finally see common sense, efficiencies, best practice, business acumen and competence towards the way roads and pavements are designed, repaired and managed in general.
[quote][p][bold]Redhillman[/bold] wrote: It's all very well having this money, but we simply cannot rely on the highways department to spend this money wisely on schemes that will alleviate the notorious traffic and safety chaos on Worcester's roads and make them safe and motor vehicle-friendly. We'll instead end up with half-baked ideas that will have little or no improvement, will invariably be anti-car and will reduce road safety. And perhaps a few more bus lanes that go to nowhere will be added in to the equation too as will dangerously located zebra crossings. Before a penny of this money is spent we need to ensure the highways department is rejigged from top to bottom and is staffed by people who know what they're doing, rather than the incompetent, overpaid and clueless oafs called highway engineers currently residing in County Hall. Or better still, hand the highways service over to the private sector where we will, finally, see massive improvements in the management of Worcester's road network.[/p][/quote]Well, it seems that there is one glimmer of hope in the highways department improving, or at least finally taking a step in the right direction. Peter Blake, the head of the highways department, is leaving! It's been clear for all to see that under his tenure, Worcestershire's roads have been poorly managed and designed. There have been so many c*ck-ups and errors of judgement while he's been in charge so I for one won;t be shedding a tear when he leaves. But his departure is now a prime opportunity for much needed, and massive, changes to be made to this department, right from the top down, and it's also an ideal opportunity to finally introduce the private sector in the running of highways where we'll finally see common sense, efficiencies, best practice, business acumen and competence towards the way roads and pavements are designed, repaired and managed in general. saucerer
  • Score: -4

8:58pm Thu 10 Apr 14

skychip says...

I was under the impression that John Hobbs oversees the highways department.
I was under the impression that John Hobbs oversees the highways department. skychip
  • Score: -3

11:35pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Hwicce says...

No northern link so they're just peeing in the wind.
No northern link so they're just peeing in the wind. Hwicce
  • Score: 7

7:58am Fri 11 Apr 14

Pomygranit says...

'The west Worcester urban extension next to Dines Green'

So that is a no to a ring road.
Geraghty again ignoring what local people want and kneeling before his masters waiting for a pat on the head.

Business and council leaders - what about the residents? Business leaders who live elsewhere and Council Leaders who are up their own backsides.

Time to vote these prats out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
'The west Worcester urban extension next to Dines Green' So that is a no to a ring road. Geraghty again ignoring what local people want and kneeling before his masters waiting for a pat on the head. Business and council leaders - what about the residents? Business leaders who live elsewhere and Council Leaders who are up their own backsides. Time to vote these prats out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! Pomygranit
  • Score: 6

10:31am Fri 11 Apr 14

chrism says...

Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.
Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car. chrism
  • Score: 1

10:56am Fri 11 Apr 14

Roger5 says...

The 11m for widening roads for housing should be stumped up by developers, as should be the current widening of the southern link! Also *please* don't waste a valuable pot of funding frittering it on piddling jobs like 'improving' existing infrastructure when we desperately need a well-built northern link. As posted here before, there is too much tactical planning and not enough strategic planning: the kind that benefits the whole economies of Worcestershie and Herefordshire. I am sick of politicians saying how fantastic these plans are whilst patently ignoring the bigger picture and clearly not giving two hoots about opinions of the voters. Time to get em out!
The 11m for widening roads for housing should be stumped up by developers, as should be the current widening of the southern link! Also *please* don't waste a valuable pot of funding frittering it on piddling jobs like 'improving' existing infrastructure when we desperately need a well-built northern link. As posted here before, there is too much tactical planning and not enough strategic planning: the kind that benefits the whole economies of Worcestershie and Herefordshire. I am sick of politicians saying how fantastic these plans are whilst patently ignoring the bigger picture and clearly not giving two hoots about opinions of the voters. Time to get em out! Roger5
  • Score: 4

11:42am Fri 11 Apr 14

CJH says...

chrism wrote:
Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.
Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well.
[quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.[/p][/quote]Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well. CJH
  • Score: 4

11:57am Fri 11 Apr 14

Fishy says...

So we might actually get a new station at Norton?? Hasn't that been on the cards for about 30 years.

Next question - will the cross country trains (which annoyingly skirt the city at present) actually stop there?
So we might actually get a new station at Norton?? Hasn't that been on the cards for about 30 years. Next question - will the cross country trains (which annoyingly skirt the city at present) actually stop there? Fishy
  • Score: 6

11:58am Fri 11 Apr 14

Andy_R says...

£266m and they are *still* not going to finish the ring road? Wasting £2m on *yet another* pedestrian bridge when we are so desperate for a road bridge is quite frankly absurd.

As Pomygranit says, it's time to vote these idiots out!
£266m and they are *still* not going to finish the ring road? Wasting £2m on *yet another* pedestrian bridge when we are so desperate for a road bridge is quite frankly absurd. As Pomygranit says, it's time to vote these idiots out! Andy_R
  • Score: 1

12:12pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Marant says...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a northern link road won't solve anything in the long term. All the land inside it would be built out, more traffic will build up and there'll be as bad a situation to the north as there is to the south before long. It's really short sighted and principally driven by the selfish desire to save some time, which in the long run it won't be able to do.

Proper planning and attracting more employment is the only way to cut congestion. You don't cut traffic by building roads, it increases it. You cut traffic by removing the need to travel. Better campaigning to stop the Black country soaking up an unfair allocation of the employment land and forcing us to have an over abundance of residential development is what's needed.

Worcester has a population of just under 100,000. Do we really have the demand for 28,000 new houses? At an average of 2.4 people per dwelling, that's an increase of 67,000 people, approximately 2/3rds of the current city size! This is all part of a plan to make us a dormer settlement for the Black Country. If that's the case then at the least the Black Country should be funding better rail links from Worcester so that all these people can get there without clogging up the roads. A train station at St John's/west of Worcester would also be required as well as the Norton Parkway.

People need to stop being distracted by the short term self-centred views that drive the desire to have a northern link road, that are all based on the fact that it'll save them a few minutes (even if it is quite a few).

These current planning policies are based around completely changing the character of Worcester, turning it into a dormitory, rather than a vibrant productive place to live. Whether we want this or not, if it's going to be done then the infrastructure to support it needs to be built too. Do you really think that building the northern link road would accommodate the additional travel requirements of 60,000+ additional people? If we're to be turned into a sleeper settlement, effectively a suburb to the Black Country, then we need the mass transit system to cope with it. Roads aren't going to hack it (and no, I don't live anywhere near the route the northern link would occupy).

I want to hear from a councillor who can tell me why we need this many houses and how it benefits Worcester to be turned into a sleeper settlement for the Black Country. We need the businesses here. The investment into dualling the London rail link will help with connections to the capital and we need to capitalise on that. We're amazingly located for business in the centre of the country, and should have easy access everywhere. Why aren't we a hub for business. We've shown that companies like Bosch can make it here.. we need more of them! Give them financial incentives if needed. The employment will pay it back in spade loads.

Worcester rolls over too easily to become just another faceless sleeper settlement. We need to get on it. Make something of the city. We've got a lot to offer. With incentives to business to come here we could have a lot more. Or we could just accept the fate decided for us from the Black Country and become a clogged up nowhere full of commuters with no attachment to this wonderful city of ours.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a northern link road won't solve anything in the long term. All the land inside it would be built out, more traffic will build up and there'll be as bad a situation to the north as there is to the south before long. It's really short sighted and principally driven by the selfish desire to save some time, which in the long run it won't be able to do. Proper planning and attracting more employment is the only way to cut congestion. You don't cut traffic by building roads, it increases it. You cut traffic by removing the need to travel. Better campaigning to stop the Black country soaking up an unfair allocation of the employment land and forcing us to have an over abundance of residential development is what's needed. Worcester has a population of just under 100,000. Do we really have the demand for 28,000 new houses? At an average of 2.4 people per dwelling, that's an increase of 67,000 people, approximately 2/3rds of the current city size! This is all part of a plan to make us a dormer settlement for the Black Country. If that's the case then at the least the Black Country should be funding better rail links from Worcester so that all these people can get there without clogging up the roads. A train station at St John's/west of Worcester would also be required as well as the Norton Parkway. People need to stop being distracted by the short term self-centred views that drive the desire to have a northern link road, that are all based on the fact that it'll save them a few minutes (even if it is quite a few). These current planning policies are based around completely changing the character of Worcester, turning it into a dormitory, rather than a vibrant productive place to live. Whether we want this or not, if it's going to be done then the infrastructure to support it needs to be built too. Do you really think that building the northern link road would accommodate the additional travel requirements of 60,000+ additional people? If we're to be turned into a sleeper settlement, effectively a suburb to the Black Country, then we need the mass transit system to cope with it. Roads aren't going to hack it (and no, I don't live anywhere near the route the northern link would occupy). I want to hear from a councillor who can tell me why we need this many houses and how it benefits Worcester to be turned into a sleeper settlement for the Black Country. We need the businesses here. The investment into dualling the London rail link will help with connections to the capital and we need to capitalise on that. We're amazingly located for business in the centre of the country, and should have easy access everywhere. Why aren't we a hub for business. We've shown that companies like Bosch can make it here.. we need more of them! Give them financial incentives if needed. The employment will pay it back in spade loads. Worcester rolls over too easily to become just another faceless sleeper settlement. We need to get on it. Make something of the city. We've got a lot to offer. With incentives to business to come here we could have a lot more. Or we could just accept the fate decided for us from the Black Country and become a clogged up nowhere full of commuters with no attachment to this wonderful city of ours. Marant
  • Score: 11

12:37pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Andy_R says...

Why do people like Marant keep trotting out this daft idea that building roads magically makes cars appear? Saying "You don't cut traffic by building roads" shows a complete lack of understanding. This isn't about "cutting traffic" at all, because in the real world people actually do need to go places, it's about cutting congestion - which is very different. Building the right roads in the right places, won't magically cause cars to appear, it will simply let people get to where they already want to go without huge delays queueing up to do so.

For proof of this, just look at the dual carriageway section of the unfinished northern ring road that runs from the M5 towards Claines. It's very quiet for a dual carriageway, because it doesn't satisfy any big pent-up demand to go from Claines to the M5, it's only real use at the moment is to take traffic from the M5 towards Kidderminster. Cars did not magically appear because this road was dualled, in fact it was a complete waste of money dualling it without either finishing the ring road or dualling all the way to Kidderminster. Not finishing the ring road means the money spent on this (and the section of unfinished ring road dual carriageway that gives up near dines green) will have been wasted.

As for "You cut traffic by removing the need to travel", who are you to tell me and everyone else not to travel? We'll drive where we need to go, and we'll do it without congestion if there are sufficient roads to get us there without having to queue.

Demand for travel is finite, once everyone can get to where they want to go
without delay, we'll have enough roads.
Why do people like Marant keep trotting out this daft idea that building roads magically makes cars appear? Saying "You don't cut traffic by building roads" shows a complete lack of understanding. This isn't about "cutting traffic" at all, because in the real world people actually do need to go places, it's about cutting congestion - which is very different. Building the right roads in the right places, won't magically cause cars to appear, it will simply let people get to where they already want to go without huge delays queueing up to do so. For proof of this, just look at the dual carriageway section of the unfinished northern ring road that runs from the M5 towards Claines. It's very quiet for a dual carriageway, because it doesn't satisfy any big pent-up demand to go from Claines to the M5, it's only real use at the moment is to take traffic from the M5 towards Kidderminster. Cars did not magically appear because this road was dualled, in fact it was a complete waste of money dualling it without either finishing the ring road or dualling all the way to Kidderminster. Not finishing the ring road means the money spent on this (and the section of unfinished ring road dual carriageway that gives up near dines green) will have been wasted. As for "You cut traffic by removing the need to travel", who are you to tell me and everyone else not to travel? We'll drive where we need to go, and we'll do it without congestion if there are sufficient roads to get us there without having to queue. Demand for travel is finite, once everyone can get to where they want to go without delay, we'll have enough roads. Andy_R
  • Score: -4

1:33pm Fri 11 Apr 14

WilkoJ says...

skychip wrote:
I was under the impression that John Hobbs oversees the highways department.
John Hobbs is the director of environmental services, which the highways department falls under, and he's Peter Blake's manager.
[quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: I was under the impression that John Hobbs oversees the highways department.[/p][/quote]John Hobbs is the director of environmental services, which the highways department falls under, and he's Peter Blake's manager. WilkoJ
  • Score: -2

12:30am Sat 12 Apr 14

chrism says...

CJH wrote:
chrism wrote:
Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.
Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well.
Building more cycle lanes might not. But I'm not suggesting slapping a bit of pink paint on the roads, I'm suggesting building proper cycling infrastructure like they have in Holland - it has been proven that such infrastructure does result in more people cycling. It's a no brainer really - if it's more convenient, safe and easy to cycle than sit in traffic jam in a car then people will do it - that's what has happened in Holland. The reason people won't cycle in this country is that the cycle facilities don't make it more convenient, safer (or more importantly they don't provide the perception of being safer) or easier as they are so rubbish. What has happened in Holland, where they have reduced congestion by increasing the numbers of people cycling through infrastructure validates my statement - their cost benefit analysis shows that the cost of cycling infrastructure is paid back in a few years through a variety of benefits to society, not least of which is reducing the amount wasted in traffic jams.

The elderly population thing is a complete red herring - in general it's not retired people creating the congestion, and what's more plenty of retired people do cycle in Holland, so age clearly doesn't prevent people from cycling. In any case the idea isn't for everybody to cycle - clearly some will still need to drive and others will choose to drive, but every one person riding a bike is one car less on the road which has to help the motorists even more than the cyclists. Meanwhile even if some people do travel long distances to work, plenty of the cars on the road are only travelling short distances which would be suitable for cycling - again it's not about getting all the cars off the road, just reducing our reliance on them.

Because you are right - as a committed cyclist I own a car and use it regularly. I don't want to ban cars - I am just as frustrated by the local congestion as the rest of you. When I can I try and avoid contributing to it by cycling instead of driving though - owning a car does not mean you have to use it. However I am clearly in a minority - and I can understand why - you have to be brave to use a cycle with our current infrastructure.

Oh and my comment about the 60s refers to the planning system - and I'm afraid once again to Holland. Back then they were busy knocking down buildings and building lots of new roads to accommodate cars which were seen as the future - just as we were. The difference is that they had a moment of enlightenment and stopped that, resulting in a better transport environment for all. There is nothing special about them apart from that they took the decision to do something radically different with their transport infrastructure - a choice we could also make here if we wanted to.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.[/p][/quote]Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well.[/p][/quote]Building more cycle lanes might not. But I'm not suggesting slapping a bit of pink paint on the roads, I'm suggesting building proper cycling infrastructure like they have in Holland - it has been proven that such infrastructure does result in more people cycling. It's a no brainer really - if it's more convenient, safe and easy to cycle than sit in traffic jam in a car then people will do it - that's what has happened in Holland. The reason people won't cycle in this country is that the cycle facilities don't make it more convenient, safer (or more importantly they don't provide the perception of being safer) or easier as they are so rubbish. What has happened in Holland, where they have reduced congestion by increasing the numbers of people cycling through infrastructure validates my statement - their cost benefit analysis shows that the cost of cycling infrastructure is paid back in a few years through a variety of benefits to society, not least of which is reducing the amount wasted in traffic jams. The elderly population thing is a complete red herring - in general it's not retired people creating the congestion, and what's more plenty of retired people do cycle in Holland, so age clearly doesn't prevent people from cycling. In any case the idea isn't for everybody to cycle - clearly some will still need to drive and others will choose to drive, but every one person riding a bike is one car less on the road which has to help the motorists even more than the cyclists. Meanwhile even if some people do travel long distances to work, plenty of the cars on the road are only travelling short distances which would be suitable for cycling - again it's not about getting all the cars off the road, just reducing our reliance on them. Because you are right - as a committed cyclist I own a car and use it regularly. I don't want to ban cars - I am just as frustrated by the local congestion as the rest of you. When I can I try and avoid contributing to it by cycling instead of driving though - owning a car does not mean you have to use it. However I am clearly in a minority - and I can understand why - you have to be brave to use a cycle with our current infrastructure. Oh and my comment about the 60s refers to the planning system - and I'm afraid once again to Holland. Back then they were busy knocking down buildings and building lots of new roads to accommodate cars which were seen as the future - just as we were. The difference is that they had a moment of enlightenment and stopped that, resulting in a better transport environment for all. There is nothing special about them apart from that they took the decision to do something radically different with their transport infrastructure - a choice we could also make here if we wanted to. chrism
  • Score: -1

7:23pm Mon 14 Apr 14

copierman says...

£56 million to reconfigure J6/M5 ? What on earth are they going to do at this junction/ roundabout to justify this exceptionally large spend which is the biggest on the list when only £17 million is earmarked for a brand new Parkway Railway station at Norton.
Has someone read the list wrong and got these two the wrong way round. A pair of new traffic lights phased in with the existing ones should sort out the A449 access onto this junction.
£56 million to reconfigure J6/M5 ? What on earth are they going to do at this junction/ roundabout to justify this exceptionally large spend which is the biggest on the list when only £17 million is earmarked for a brand new Parkway Railway station at Norton. Has someone read the list wrong and got these two the wrong way round. A pair of new traffic lights phased in with the existing ones should sort out the A449 access onto this junction. copierman
  • Score: 3

8:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

CJH says...

chrism wrote:
CJH wrote:
chrism wrote:
Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.
Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well.
Building more cycle lanes might not. But I'm not suggesting slapping a bit of pink paint on the roads, I'm suggesting building proper cycling infrastructure like they have in Holland - it has been proven that such infrastructure does result in more people cycling. It's a no brainer really - if it's more convenient, safe and easy to cycle than sit in traffic jam in a car then people will do it - that's what has happened in Holland. The reason people won't cycle in this country is that the cycle facilities don't make it more convenient, safer (or more importantly they don't provide the perception of being safer) or easier as they are so rubbish. What has happened in Holland, where they have reduced congestion by increasing the numbers of people cycling through infrastructure validates my statement - their cost benefit analysis shows that the cost of cycling infrastructure is paid back in a few years through a variety of benefits to society, not least of which is reducing the amount wasted in traffic jams.

The elderly population thing is a complete red herring - in general it's not retired people creating the congestion, and what's more plenty of retired people do cycle in Holland, so age clearly doesn't prevent people from cycling. In any case the idea isn't for everybody to cycle - clearly some will still need to drive and others will choose to drive, but every one person riding a bike is one car less on the road which has to help the motorists even more than the cyclists. Meanwhile even if some people do travel long distances to work, plenty of the cars on the road are only travelling short distances which would be suitable for cycling - again it's not about getting all the cars off the road, just reducing our reliance on them.

Because you are right - as a committed cyclist I own a car and use it regularly. I don't want to ban cars - I am just as frustrated by the local congestion as the rest of you. When I can I try and avoid contributing to it by cycling instead of driving though - owning a car does not mean you have to use it. However I am clearly in a minority - and I can understand why - you have to be brave to use a cycle with our current infrastructure.

Oh and my comment about the 60s refers to the planning system - and I'm afraid once again to Holland. Back then they were busy knocking down buildings and building lots of new roads to accommodate cars which were seen as the future - just as we were. The difference is that they had a moment of enlightenment and stopped that, resulting in a better transport environment for all. There is nothing special about them apart from that they took the decision to do something radically different with their transport infrastructure - a choice we could also make here if we wanted to.
Two things: 1st - We are not Dutch. 2nd - This is not Holland.
.
The Dutch culture is different to ours and cycling plays a much larger part in their lives, and the geography is certainly not the same. I've been to Holland and their hills are like our speed bumps. If they had to cycle up and down the Malverns, or Tolladine Hill or Bath Road they might think twice about using a bike! It's only for the fit and the brave!
[quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrism[/bold] wrote: Where's the money for proper cycling infrastucture then? They could spend a fraction of the amount on that and make far more difference to congestion than all those road improvements will. Transport planning in this country appears to still be stuck in a 60s mindset when it's clear we need to stop basing everything so much on the car.[/p][/quote]Building more cycle lanes etc will not make people use bikes if they don't want to. We have an increasing elderly population who may not be able to, or want to, cycle. People now work further away from home than they used to, so journeys are longer. In the 1960s many people still did not own a car, and even if they did probably not more than one in a family, so it's difficult to see how we are still stuck in that 'mindset'. I cannot see how your statement that it will make far more difference to congestion is valid. Cars are not going away any time soon. Even the most committed cyclists usually have cars as well.[/p][/quote]Building more cycle lanes might not. But I'm not suggesting slapping a bit of pink paint on the roads, I'm suggesting building proper cycling infrastructure like they have in Holland - it has been proven that such infrastructure does result in more people cycling. It's a no brainer really - if it's more convenient, safe and easy to cycle than sit in traffic jam in a car then people will do it - that's what has happened in Holland. The reason people won't cycle in this country is that the cycle facilities don't make it more convenient, safer (or more importantly they don't provide the perception of being safer) or easier as they are so rubbish. What has happened in Holland, where they have reduced congestion by increasing the numbers of people cycling through infrastructure validates my statement - their cost benefit analysis shows that the cost of cycling infrastructure is paid back in a few years through a variety of benefits to society, not least of which is reducing the amount wasted in traffic jams. The elderly population thing is a complete red herring - in general it's not retired people creating the congestion, and what's more plenty of retired people do cycle in Holland, so age clearly doesn't prevent people from cycling. In any case the idea isn't for everybody to cycle - clearly some will still need to drive and others will choose to drive, but every one person riding a bike is one car less on the road which has to help the motorists even more than the cyclists. Meanwhile even if some people do travel long distances to work, plenty of the cars on the road are only travelling short distances which would be suitable for cycling - again it's not about getting all the cars off the road, just reducing our reliance on them. Because you are right - as a committed cyclist I own a car and use it regularly. I don't want to ban cars - I am just as frustrated by the local congestion as the rest of you. When I can I try and avoid contributing to it by cycling instead of driving though - owning a car does not mean you have to use it. However I am clearly in a minority - and I can understand why - you have to be brave to use a cycle with our current infrastructure. Oh and my comment about the 60s refers to the planning system - and I'm afraid once again to Holland. Back then they were busy knocking down buildings and building lots of new roads to accommodate cars which were seen as the future - just as we were. The difference is that they had a moment of enlightenment and stopped that, resulting in a better transport environment for all. There is nothing special about them apart from that they took the decision to do something radically different with their transport infrastructure - a choice we could also make here if we wanted to.[/p][/quote]Two things: 1st - We are not Dutch. 2nd - This is not Holland. . The Dutch culture is different to ours and cycling plays a much larger part in their lives, and the geography is certainly not the same. I've been to Holland and their hills are like our speed bumps. If they had to cycle up and down the Malverns, or Tolladine Hill or Bath Road they might think twice about using a bike! It's only for the fit and the brave! CJH
  • Score: 1

3:58pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Worcester Lad says...

It includes bids of £173 million from central Government, and if accepted the likes of Worcestershire County Council and the Highways Agency will put the remaining £93 million into the kitty themselves. .Ok so with all these cuts that the County Council seem to be making so they can save money ,where is this £93 million coming from?
It includes bids of £173 million from central Government, and if accepted the likes of Worcestershire County Council and the Highways Agency will put the remaining £93 million into the kitty themselves. .Ok so with all these cuts that the County Council seem to be making so they can save money ,where is this £93 million coming from? Worcester Lad
  • Score: 3

11:51am Wed 16 Apr 14

IanMurray says...

£56M on a motorway Junction! For that money you could build a 4th lane from J6 to J3. or the northern ring road.
£56M on a motorway Junction! For that money you could build a 4th lane from J6 to J3. or the northern ring road. IanMurray
  • Score: 1

9:29am Thu 17 Apr 14

MJI says...

We need a Northern bypass and doubling over the Severn.

The problem is M5 to Hereford/Malvern traffic
We need a Northern bypass and doubling over the Severn. The problem is M5 to Hereford/Malvern traffic MJI
  • Score: 3

5:01pm Thu 17 Apr 14

copierman says...

copierman wrote:
£56 million to reconfigure J6/M5 ? What on earth are they going to do at this junction/ roundabout to justify this exceptionally large spend which is the biggest on the list when only £17 million is earmarked for a brand new Parkway Railway station at Norton.
Has someone read the list wrong and got these two the wrong way round. A pair of new traffic lights phased in with the existing ones should sort out the A449 access onto this junction.
Worcester Observer reports this M5/J6 revamp scheme as £6 million, which is £50 million cheaper than the £56 million reported in W.E.News.
[quote][p][bold]copierman[/bold] wrote: £56 million to reconfigure J6/M5 ? What on earth are they going to do at this junction/ roundabout to justify this exceptionally large spend which is the biggest on the list when only £17 million is earmarked for a brand new Parkway Railway station at Norton. Has someone read the list wrong and got these two the wrong way round. A pair of new traffic lights phased in with the existing ones should sort out the A449 access onto this junction.[/p][/quote]Worcester Observer reports this M5/J6 revamp scheme as £6 million, which is £50 million cheaper than the £56 million reported in W.E.News. copierman
  • Score: 2

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