Blow to hopes for Northern Link Road

Malvern Gazette: Worcestershire County Council: the deputy leader says a Northern Link is not on the agenda Worcestershire County Council: the deputy leader says a Northern Link is not on the agenda

THE deputy leader of Worcestershire County Council has poured cold water on hopes for a Northern Relief Link Road around Worcester - calling it an unwanted "distraction".

Councillor Simon Geraghty says despite huge public pressure to get it built, the leadership of County Hall will not be making it a priority.

He also believes it would be "dangerous" for the council to lobby the Government over the ring road completion, insisting being too greedy could put other investment at risk.

Proposals for a northern link first emerged in 2010, when the council revealed drawings showing a new River Severn crossing near Bevere island.

But the costs, estimated at £160 million, have meant it has been off the agenda ever since.

The council has been working with Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership to draw up a raft of bids to Government worth £250 million by 2021, focusing on transport, but crucially it does not include a Northern Relief Link Road.

Cllr Geraghty has now admitted for the first time that it has been shelved indefinitely, barring a change of political leadership at the council.

"In the document that has been sent to Government we've got one clear message, there is no argument or disagreements over it," he said.

"It's a clear plan backed by all our MPs, council leaders of different political persuasions, the entire LEP board and businesses.

"I'd say with that level of support we've got a unanimous plan, I've never seen that before and what we cannot do is allow other distractions to throw us off.

"The danger is, if you down that route (of calling for a northern link) you stop talking about what's in the plan and focus on something you are probably not going to get.

"We've got a plan which is backed by everybody, -everyone in a position of power has said 'this is the right plan'."

He also says "the majority" of new houses planned in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) focuses on south Worcester, and not northern areas like Claines.

"That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said.

The document's transport bids focuses on key projects like the A4440 Southern Link Road, including £63 million to dual Carrington Bridge, and £7.5 million for Worcestershire Parkway rail station.

The stance has angered the council's opposition Labour group, with Councillor Richard Udall claiming the focus on the A4440 is "unpopular" and "discredited".

Under the 2010 plans the northern link would run from the A449 Claines roundabout to the A44 Crown East island.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:39am Mon 19 May 14

skychip says...

Why does Norton have to have all the houses and not Claines.
Why does Norton have to have all the houses and not Claines. skychip
  • Score: 7

11:39am Mon 19 May 14

Hwicce says...

And there you have it - an admission by the County Council that haven't got a clue and are totally out of touch with the wants and needs of the people of Worcester(shire).

Is there an election soon so we can get rid of them? :-)
And there you have it - an admission by the County Council that haven't got a clue and are totally out of touch with the wants and needs of the people of Worcester(shire). Is there an election soon so we can get rid of them? :-) Hwicce
  • Score: 27

11:54am Mon 19 May 14

apching says...

Ridiculous - the same council that said a second bridge in town would cause more congestion. Absolutely out of touch and an absolute joke. It's not about "being greedy", it's about decades upon decades of underinvestment, that has caught up with a city choking under the volume of traffic. And yet, we'll keep building houses and increasing the population whilst making pathetic gestures to "improve" the infrastructure. Then claiming the real fixes are "a distraction" or wouldn't work!

What a embarrassment... as Hwicce rightly alludes, it is election week!
Ridiculous - the same council that said a second bridge in town would cause more congestion. Absolutely out of touch and an absolute joke. It's not about "being greedy", it's about decades upon decades of underinvestment, that has caught up with a city choking under the volume of traffic. And yet, we'll keep building houses and increasing the population whilst making pathetic gestures to "improve" the infrastructure. Then claiming the real fixes are "a distraction" or wouldn't work! What a embarrassment... as Hwicce rightly alludes, it is election week! apching
  • Score: 22

12:39pm Mon 19 May 14

Doogie 46 says...

Bit of a mystery why ALL the local politicians are united in the opinion that all the development and all the traffic has to be directed to the south of Worcester - don`t think the northern boundary has altered since the 1950`s - I wonder why!!!
Bit of a mystery why ALL the local politicians are united in the opinion that all the development and all the traffic has to be directed to the south of Worcester - don`t think the northern boundary has altered since the 1950`s - I wonder why!!! Doogie 46
  • Score: 10

1:02pm Mon 19 May 14

Pomygranit says...

"We've got a plan which is backed by everybody, -everyone in a position of power has said 'this is the right plan'."

What Geraghty fails to acknowledge is that his power is to express the will of the electorate. This he is failing to do except for his Tory chums in Claines. Certainly not his consituents/ward.

Geraghty - the new Prodger
"We've got a plan which is backed by everybody, -everyone in a position of power has said 'this is the right plan'." What Geraghty fails to acknowledge is that his power is to express the will of the electorate. This he is failing to do except for his Tory chums in Claines. Certainly not his consituents/ward. Geraghty - the new Prodger Pomygranit
  • Score: 7

1:17pm Mon 19 May 14

DEMRICS says...

As if we needed it, this is categorical confirmation that Worcestershire County Council's Councillors and its highways department are totally and utterly inept.

The council's statement is not only ludicrous, but it's scandalous and serves to highlight the fact that only do they not listen to the tax payer, particularly on an issue which the majority of Worcester's population favours, but they simply do not know what they are doing. Their management of the highway network in this county is frankly disgraceful.

It is very much time for residents to take action against the Councillors and the highways department and begin calls for those culpable to be named and shamed and for heads to roll too.
As if we needed it, this is categorical confirmation that Worcestershire County Council's Councillors and its highways department are totally and utterly inept. The council's statement is not only ludicrous, but it's scandalous and serves to highlight the fact that only do they not listen to the tax payer, particularly on an issue which the majority of Worcester's population favours, but they simply do not know what they are doing. Their management of the highway network in this county is frankly disgraceful. It is very much time for residents to take action against the Councillors and the highways department and begin calls for those culpable to be named and shamed and for heads to roll too. DEMRICS
  • Score: 16

1:21pm Mon 19 May 14

DEMRICS says...

Anyone wishing to vent their understandable concerns must contact Councillor John Smith (the cabinet members for highways), Mr John Hobbs (the director of business, environmental and community), Mr Peter Blake (the head of integrated transport, i.e. the highways department) and Mr Tom Comerford (the highways manager primarily responsible for decision making). Please let them know how disgusted and angry people are with them.
Anyone wishing to vent their understandable concerns must contact Councillor John Smith (the cabinet members for highways), Mr John Hobbs (the director of business, environmental and community), Mr Peter Blake (the head of integrated transport, i.e. the highways department) and Mr Tom Comerford (the highways manager primarily responsible for decision making). Please let them know how disgusted and angry people are with them. DEMRICS
  • Score: 8

1:25pm Mon 19 May 14

CJH says...

An 'unwanted distraction' ??? What a complete and utter load of rubbish. Even for Geraghty this is total billhooks! By his own admission he states that there is huge public pressure to build this link. Has he forgotten that he works for us, not the other way round? Arrogant, useless, patronising and lots of other words which would get me banned...grrr!
An 'unwanted distraction' ??? What a complete and utter load of rubbish. Even for Geraghty this is total billhooks! By his own admission he states that there is huge public pressure to build this link. Has he forgotten that he works for us, not the other way round? Arrogant, useless, patronising and lots of other words which would get me banned...grrr! CJH
  • Score: 25

1:38pm Mon 19 May 14

Redhillman says...

Well done Worcestershire county council and the highways department, you've demonstrated to us all yet again why we all think you are pathetic and, frankly, utterly incompetent. But you all carry on earning your huge salaries and perks as you continue to forever make woeful decisions towards Worcestershire's roads while continually ignore what the tax-payer, who you're employed to serve, wants. A public inquiry in to the running of this department is needed, and needed urgently, while I'm sure the Tax Payer's Alliance would be interested too.
Well done Worcestershire county council and the highways department, you've demonstrated to us all yet again why we all think you are pathetic and, frankly, utterly incompetent. But you all carry on earning your huge salaries and perks as you continue to forever make woeful decisions towards Worcestershire's roads while continually ignore what the tax-payer, who you're employed to serve, wants. A public inquiry in to the running of this department is needed, and needed urgently, while I'm sure the Tax Payer's Alliance would be interested too. Redhillman
  • Score: 18

1:39pm Mon 19 May 14

Redhillman says...

DEMRICS wrote:
Anyone wishing to vent their understandable concerns must contact Councillor John Smith (the cabinet members for highways), Mr John Hobbs (the director of business, environmental and community), Mr Peter Blake (the head of integrated transport, i.e. the highways department) and Mr Tom Comerford (the highways manager primarily responsible for decision making). Please let them know how disgusted and angry people are with them.
I've been in contact with Mr Tom Comerford on other road issues. Chocolate fireguard is a well known phrase that springs to mind.
[quote][p][bold]DEMRICS[/bold] wrote: Anyone wishing to vent their understandable concerns must contact Councillor John Smith (the cabinet members for highways), Mr John Hobbs (the director of business, environmental and community), Mr Peter Blake (the head of integrated transport, i.e. the highways department) and Mr Tom Comerford (the highways manager primarily responsible for decision making). Please let them know how disgusted and angry people are with them.[/p][/quote]I've been in contact with Mr Tom Comerford on other road issues. Chocolate fireguard is a well known phrase that springs to mind. Redhillman
  • Score: 6

3:31pm Mon 19 May 14

I'm_not_bitter says...

"He also says "the majority" of new houses planned in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) focuses on south Worcester, and not northern areas like Claines.
"That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said. "

The infrastructure isn't there to develop to the south (hence the ridiculous waste of money happening there now and plans for the bridge) or the north, so that is no argument for not building a northern relief road.

And for "planned" read "DUMPED as far away from the high and mighty as possible". As far as I can see we've got Malvern dumping there housing on St Peter's, Worcester, AND to the west, Wychavon dumping theirs off Whittington Road, Worcester, and Worcester trying to dump theirs on open space overlooking St. Peter's. I'll bet all is quiet and peaceful in Claines!
"He also says "the majority" of new houses planned in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) focuses on south Worcester, and not northern areas like Claines. "That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said. " The infrastructure isn't there to develop to the south (hence the ridiculous waste of money happening there now and plans for the bridge) or the north, so that is no argument for not building a northern relief road. And for "planned" read "DUMPED as far away from the high and mighty as possible". As far as I can see we've got Malvern dumping there housing on St Peter's, Worcester, AND to the west, Wychavon dumping theirs off Whittington Road, Worcester, and Worcester trying to dump theirs on open space overlooking St. Peter's. I'll bet all is quiet and peaceful in Claines! I'm_not_bitter
  • Score: 7

3:32pm Mon 19 May 14

rugbycoach says...

Surely we cannot expect the County Council to listen to its electorate?
Surely we cannot expect the County Council to listen to its electorate? rugbycoach
  • Score: 3

3:56pm Mon 19 May 14

Slobbin says...

I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing?

I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it?

Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count?
I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing? I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it? Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count? Slobbin
  • Score: 4

5:34pm Mon 19 May 14

apching says...

Slobbin wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing?

I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it?

Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count?
I don't think it's one or the other - it is that we need an actual bypass which goes all the way around the city. I'm all for dual tracking the southern link (as it should have been 25-30 years ago in the first place!) - but I also think that building a bypass around the north of the city would go a long way to reducing traffic around and in the town (people still going through the centre of the city when heading north). It would potentially help to spread the development around the city a little better as well as opening up the city on the other side of the river a little more.
[quote][p][bold]Slobbin[/bold] wrote: I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing? I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it? Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count?[/p][/quote]I don't think it's one or the other - it is that we need an actual bypass which goes all the way around the city. I'm all for dual tracking the southern link (as it should have been 25-30 years ago in the first place!) - but I also think that building a bypass around the north of the city would go a long way to reducing traffic around and in the town (people still going through the centre of the city when heading north). It would potentially help to spread the development around the city a little better as well as opening up the city on the other side of the river a little more. apching
  • Score: 12

8:29pm Mon 19 May 14

insidethebox says...

Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.
Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service. insidethebox
  • Score: 5

9:24pm Mon 19 May 14

saucerer says...

Here we go again, The county council's highways department displaying further incompetence by doing the wrong thing yet again. I really am getting fed up to the back teeth with their misguided decisions and their plain ineptitude which seems endless.

How much longer do the residents of Worcestershire have to suffer from their pathetic decisions and dreadful management of roads and pavements? What can we, as tax payers do, to turn this department around? Apart from electing/not electing councillors, is there anything we can do about the actual highways staff themselves and their continuing incompetence?

There is a Facebook page on the highways department where people can leave comments. It's linked to the council's own Facebook page so I'm sure they'd see any comments we leave. The page can be found at:

https://www.facebook
.com/pages/Worcester
shire-County-Council
-highways-department
-good-or-bad/2485395
85331808

It's an opportunity to air your views and tell the council what we really think of them.
Here we go again, The county council's highways department displaying further incompetence by doing the wrong thing yet again. I really am getting fed up to the back teeth with their misguided decisions and their plain ineptitude which seems endless. How much longer do the residents of Worcestershire have to suffer from their pathetic decisions and dreadful management of roads and pavements? What can we, as tax payers do, to turn this department around? Apart from electing/not electing councillors, is there anything we can do about the actual highways staff themselves and their continuing incompetence? There is a Facebook page on the highways department where people can leave comments. It's linked to the council's own Facebook page so I'm sure they'd see any comments we leave. The page can be found at: https://www.facebook .com/pages/Worcester shire-County-Council -highways-department -good-or-bad/2485395 85331808 It's an opportunity to air your views and tell the council what we really think of them. saucerer
  • Score: -1

9:50pm Mon 19 May 14

F1 Dave says...

(Cllr Geraghty has now admitted for the first time that it has been shelved indefinitely, barring a change of political leadership at the council)

Simple Vote the Tory's out!!!!!
Mr Peter Blake is leaving WCC

Not so simple is Mr John Hobbs, this man has a chequered career at WCC.
He was once sent to another Council while things at WCC cooled down.
But unlucky for the female staff at County Hall he was allowed back.
(Cllr Geraghty has now admitted for the first time that it has been shelved indefinitely, barring a change of political leadership at the council) Simple Vote the Tory's out!!!!! Mr Peter Blake is leaving WCC Not so simple is Mr John Hobbs, this man has a chequered career at WCC. He was once sent to another Council while things at WCC cooled down. But unlucky for the female staff at County Hall he was allowed back. F1 Dave
  • Score: -5

10:27pm Mon 19 May 14

SgtAl says...

What is wrong with these 'representatives' of ours; if a problem is caused by issues on 2 fronts, you must tackle those issues on 2 fronts to solve the problem. How hard can that be to understand.

Also, who are they to make decisions against the wishes of the electorate? Would it not be democratic to offer the people of Worcester the choice as to what it is our money is spent on?

COUNCILLORS TAKE NOTE: Solving only half a problem leaves you with a problem still.
What is wrong with these 'representatives' of ours; if a problem is caused by issues on 2 fronts, you must tackle those issues on 2 fronts to solve the problem. How hard can that be to understand. Also, who are they to make decisions against the wishes of the electorate? Would it not be democratic to offer the people of Worcester the choice as to what it is our money is spent on? COUNCILLORS TAKE NOTE: Solving only half a problem leaves you with a problem still. SgtAl
  • Score: 4

10:38pm Mon 19 May 14

Moltaire says...

F1 Dave wrote:
(Cllr Geraghty has now admitted for the first time that it has been shelved indefinitely, barring a change of political leadership at the council)

Simple Vote the Tory's out!!!!!
Mr Peter Blake is leaving WCC

Not so simple is Mr John Hobbs, this man has a chequered career at WCC.
He was once sent to another Council while things at WCC cooled down.
But unlucky for the female staff at County Hall he was allowed back.
From my dealings with the council I was aware of Mr Hobbs ' issue which saw him move to Kent County Council for a while. And remember he's not totally committed to his current, important position, as he's part of the TA and he has been away for months on occasions. And I believe Peter Blake is going to work for Transport for London as a director, mostly probably going to make a pig's year of their transport network like he's done at Worcestershire. As for John Smith, we just make sure he's not elected. As for the other person who's mentioned in one of the blogs, Tom Comerford, I'm not sure what the process is to either hold him to account or get him removed from his job. Either way, it's clear the council's highways dept are staffed and run by idiots.
[quote][p][bold]F1 Dave[/bold] wrote: (Cllr Geraghty has now admitted for the first time that it has been shelved indefinitely, barring a change of political leadership at the council) Simple Vote the Tory's out!!!!! Mr Peter Blake is leaving WCC Not so simple is Mr John Hobbs, this man has a chequered career at WCC. He was once sent to another Council while things at WCC cooled down. But unlucky for the female staff at County Hall he was allowed back.[/p][/quote]From my dealings with the council I was aware of Mr Hobbs ' issue which saw him move to Kent County Council for a while. And remember he's not totally committed to his current, important position, as he's part of the TA and he has been away for months on occasions. And I believe Peter Blake is going to work for Transport for London as a director, mostly probably going to make a pig's year of their transport network like he's done at Worcestershire. As for John Smith, we just make sure he's not elected. As for the other person who's mentioned in one of the blogs, Tom Comerford, I'm not sure what the process is to either hold him to account or get him removed from his job. Either way, it's clear the council's highways dept are staffed and run by idiots. Moltaire
  • Score: 4

12:40am Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

I am praying that Geragthy has signed his own destiny / end wish by saying that this much needed Northern Byepass, which was affordable some time back when again Geraghty & Co did not apply for funding, is now off the table. So perhaps the way for those who are not involved in political trickery to Vote Geraghty and the CONservatives out.
I would however be deeply concerned that if we are able to get some councillors / planners to see the real need for a Northern Byepass that with the huge mistakes already made over the Southern Link and continuing, that those who have messed up BIG TIME will even be allowed near a shovel. Millions are being poured into the Sothern side just to try to rectify the lack of common sense and schemes that do not work, demonstrated by Geragthy & Co.
There really has to be a some reason why Geragthy is defending Claines Hallow and his own St Clements Ward, (possibly all over views over their back Garden fences) while they watch this City grind to a halt. It's a pity that Geraghty and others could not be legally held responsible for wasting public funds.
So now we know the CONservatives must go. The political structure of County Hall must change with a closer number of political seats, since knowhere when there is a large majority do we get reason or sensible democratic decisions. Which also means that the other political parties need to get off their Bottoms and redress the inbalances.
I am praying that Geragthy has signed his own destiny / end wish by saying that this much needed Northern Byepass, which was affordable some time back when again Geraghty & Co did not apply for funding, is now off the table. So perhaps the way for those who are not involved in political trickery to Vote Geraghty and the CONservatives out. I would however be deeply concerned that if we are able to get some councillors / planners to see the real need for a Northern Byepass that with the huge mistakes already made over the Southern Link and continuing, that those who have messed up BIG TIME will even be allowed near a shovel. Millions are being poured into the Sothern side just to try to rectify the lack of common sense and schemes that do not work, demonstrated by Geragthy & Co. There really has to be a some reason why Geragthy is defending Claines Hallow and his own St Clements Ward, (possibly all over views over their back Garden fences) while they watch this City grind to a halt. It's a pity that Geraghty and others could not be legally held responsible for wasting public funds. So now we know the CONservatives must go. The political structure of County Hall must change with a closer number of political seats, since knowhere when there is a large majority do we get reason or sensible democratic decisions. Which also means that the other political parties need to get off their Bottoms and redress the inbalances. Jabbadad
  • Score: 2

7:47am Tue 20 May 14

brooksider says...

I'm_not_bitter wrote:
"He also says "the majority" of new houses planned in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) focuses on south Worcester, and not northern areas like Claines.
"That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said. "

The infrastructure isn't there to develop to the south (hence the ridiculous waste of money happening there now and plans for the bridge) or the north, so that is no argument for not building a northern relief road.

And for "planned" read "DUMPED as far away from the high and mighty as possible". As far as I can see we've got Malvern dumping there housing on St Peter's, Worcester, AND to the west, Wychavon dumping theirs off Whittington Road, Worcester, and Worcester trying to dump theirs on open space overlooking St. Peter's. I'll bet all is quiet and peaceful in Claines!
Claines will not escape Wychavon's grasp.
Gwillams farm on the A449 plus their land off Dilmore Lane Fernhill Heath is earmarked for housing.
[quote][p][bold]I'm_not_bitter[/bold] wrote: "He also says "the majority" of new houses planned in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) focuses on south Worcester, and not northern areas like Claines. "That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said. " The infrastructure isn't there to develop to the south (hence the ridiculous waste of money happening there now and plans for the bridge) or the north, so that is no argument for not building a northern relief road. And for "planned" read "DUMPED as far away from the high and mighty as possible". As far as I can see we've got Malvern dumping there housing on St Peter's, Worcester, AND to the west, Wychavon dumping theirs off Whittington Road, Worcester, and Worcester trying to dump theirs on open space overlooking St. Peter's. I'll bet all is quiet and peaceful in Claines![/p][/quote]Claines will not escape Wychavon's grasp. Gwillams farm on the A449 plus their land off Dilmore Lane Fernhill Heath is earmarked for housing. brooksider
  • Score: 6

8:40am Tue 20 May 14

WJS1950 says...

The misguided council are more concerned with using some of these funds on the Norton Parkway station rather than address Worcester's chronic traffic problems, which would be eased with the completion of the ring road.

The concept of parkway stations are fine if they have been thought out properly, but this one at Norton hasn't.

Firstly, there will be no benefit for residents in Worcester whatsoever because First Great Western services will continue to serve Worcester's 2 stations which are easier to access for the majority of residents in and around the city. These services also serve Pershore and Evesham, so the parkway station won't change where people from these towns board trains. And First Great Western serves the Malvern stations too.

Secondly, because of its locality, travelling to the station by car will almost be a necessity. This is not necessarily the case with the existing stations in Worcester, which are not only served by regular buses, but within relatively easy walking distance too for many people.

Thirdly, one of the main reasons for this parkway's forthcoming existence is to allow Worcester to be served by cross country inter city trains which currently bypass the city (in fact Worcestershire is the only county in Britain where cross country services pass through but don't stop). Arriva Cross Country's reason for not stopping in Worcester is because of the extended journey times due to slow line speeds between Norton and Stoke Prior junctions and Worcester. However, when the parkway station opens, these cross country trains won't stop there. So at the moment, if you want to get a cross country train, you need to get a connecting train from one of the existing Worcester stations to Birmingham or Cheltenham anyway.

So, there you have it. A multi-million pound station which will have extremely little benefit for residents in Worcestershire. It will only act in the way parkway stations are designed to work, encourage people from major roads and nearby motorways to drive there and catch the train, but the majority of these drivers won't live in Worcester.

If the council is adamant in using some of their precious funds for trains, then they should invest that money in bringing line speeds between Norton and Stoke Prior junctions and Worcester up to scratch, as well as encourage Arriva Cross Country to call at Worcester itself where there will there be greater benefits for residents and the local economy. The council's budget must be used to benefit Worcestershire residents first.

Is it any wonder why the council is viewed with total disdain and seen as incompetent.
The misguided council are more concerned with using some of these funds on the Norton Parkway station rather than address Worcester's chronic traffic problems, which would be eased with the completion of the ring road. The concept of parkway stations are fine if they have been thought out properly, but this one at Norton hasn't. Firstly, there will be no benefit for residents in Worcester whatsoever because First Great Western services will continue to serve Worcester's 2 stations which are easier to access for the majority of residents in and around the city. These services also serve Pershore and Evesham, so the parkway station won't change where people from these towns board trains. And First Great Western serves the Malvern stations too. Secondly, because of its locality, travelling to the station by car will almost be a necessity. This is not necessarily the case with the existing stations in Worcester, which are not only served by regular buses, but within relatively easy walking distance too for many people. Thirdly, one of the main reasons for this parkway's forthcoming existence is to allow Worcester to be served by cross country inter city trains which currently bypass the city (in fact Worcestershire is the only county in Britain where cross country services pass through but don't stop). Arriva Cross Country's reason for not stopping in Worcester is because of the extended journey times due to slow line speeds between Norton and Stoke Prior junctions and Worcester. However, when the parkway station opens, these cross country trains won't stop there. So at the moment, if you want to get a cross country train, you need to get a connecting train from one of the existing Worcester stations to Birmingham or Cheltenham anyway. So, there you have it. A multi-million pound station which will have extremely little benefit for residents in Worcestershire. It will only act in the way parkway stations are designed to work, encourage people from major roads and nearby motorways to drive there and catch the train, but the majority of these drivers won't live in Worcester. If the council is adamant in using some of their precious funds for trains, then they should invest that money in bringing line speeds between Norton and Stoke Prior junctions and Worcester up to scratch, as well as encourage Arriva Cross Country to call at Worcester itself where there will there be greater benefits for residents and the local economy. The council's budget must be used to benefit Worcestershire residents first. Is it any wonder why the council is viewed with total disdain and seen as incompetent. WJS1950
  • Score: 8

11:54am Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

Good well informed posting WJS 1950
Good well informed posting WJS 1950 Jabbadad
  • Score: -7

12:39pm Tue 20 May 14

themooman says...

we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!!
we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!! themooman
  • Score: -15

3:07pm Tue 20 May 14

reflector says...

insidethebox wrote:
Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.
Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway?
[quote][p][bold]insidethebox[/bold] wrote: Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.[/p][/quote]Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway? reflector
  • Score: 1

5:22pm Tue 20 May 14

Reynard11 says...

Utter codswallop!!!!

"That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said.

Erm.... a northern relief road is to help traffic flow in the South and not Claines.
If a northern relief road were built the folly of the duel tracking wouldn't need to be done. Plus we don’t have to go through the pain over the next 12 months whilst work is carried out.
I know its hard for a council to be proactive rather than reactive....not in their DNA. We all know we will have to revisit this problem in a couple of years time.
Makes me wonder if they have an ulterior motive as why they don’t want it done. Do they live in the area of Claines or is it much more sinister involving brown paper bags? The duel tracking is the cheaper option as the building developers around St Peters are probably paying for it anyway.
Another bridge crossing is whats needed at the northern end of the city, that isnt affected by inclement weather. We all know it.
Utter codswallop!!!! "That growth will be towards the south, not northern areas, and that's where the transport investment has to go," he said. Erm.... a northern relief road is to help traffic flow in the South and not Claines. If a northern relief road were built the folly of the duel tracking wouldn't need to be done. Plus we don’t have to go through the pain over the next 12 months whilst work is carried out. I know its hard for a council to be proactive rather than reactive....not in their DNA. We all know we will have to revisit this problem in a couple of years time. Makes me wonder if they have an ulterior motive as why they don’t want it done. Do they live in the area of Claines or is it much more sinister involving brown paper bags? The duel tracking is the cheaper option as the building developers around St Peters are probably paying for it anyway. Another bridge crossing is whats needed at the northern end of the city, that isnt affected by inclement weather. We all know it. Reynard11
  • Score: 4

5:51pm Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

Yes we all know apart from the mooman and our RUBBISH POLITICIANS that is.
Yes we all know apart from the mooman and our RUBBISH POLITICIANS that is. Jabbadad
  • Score: -1

6:41pm Tue 20 May 14

rainbowhiller says...

they dont want too push luck on funding for new link road. but want to waste money on a third railway station in worcester. train services are dybolical in worcester. lets but the money in to a very busy link road not a waste of money third station
they dont want too push luck on funding for new link road. but want to waste money on a third railway station in worcester. train services are dybolical in worcester. lets but the money in to a very busy link road not a waste of money third station rainbowhiller
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Tue 20 May 14

Slobbin says...

apching wrote:
Slobbin wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing?

I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it?

Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count?
I don't think it's one or the other - it is that we need an actual bypass which goes all the way around the city. I'm all for dual tracking the southern link (as it should have been 25-30 years ago in the first place!) - but I also think that building a bypass around the north of the city would go a long way to reducing traffic around and in the town (people still going through the centre of the city when heading north). It would potentially help to spread the development around the city a little better as well as opening up the city on the other side of the river a little more.
Thanks for the helpful reply apching.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to build a northern link, and journey times will get slower and slower on the southern route unless it is enlarged.

I'd still like to see the evidence that everyone wants a northern link road.
[quote][p][bold]apching[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Slobbin[/bold] wrote: I'm a bit confused by the comments. Is this a pro northern link lobby, or an anti southern link one? Are you all in north worcester desperate for a main road and more housing? I'd be interested to see the evidence that "the majority of Worcestershire's residents" want a northern link. Please could someone signpost me to it? Presumably the views of the people who sit in the in the traffic jams on the southern link do not count?[/p][/quote]I don't think it's one or the other - it is that we need an actual bypass which goes all the way around the city. I'm all for dual tracking the southern link (as it should have been 25-30 years ago in the first place!) - but I also think that building a bypass around the north of the city would go a long way to reducing traffic around and in the town (people still going through the centre of the city when heading north). It would potentially help to spread the development around the city a little better as well as opening up the city on the other side of the river a little more.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the helpful reply apching. Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to build a northern link, and journey times will get slower and slower on the southern route unless it is enlarged. I'd still like to see the evidence that everyone wants a northern link road. Slobbin
  • Score: 3

11:02pm Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

Slobbin , unless you are on another planet the majority of the postings on here have been recognising the need for the continuation of the Northern Byepass, and this has been recognised since around the time the UNDERSIZED southern byepass was built during the 1980's but obviously only to cope until 2009, and with a Two Lane Bridge not designed for Widening when traffic congestion became a supposedly unforseen problem , and Geraghty had already made his mind up that there would not be a Northern Link Road, so I understand form news items that Government funding for this essential Northern link road were not applied for, So perhaps Geraghty (or Worcestershires very own Little Ceasor) just assumed that the government would refuse. And we are where we are, with a half built Ring Road and a section that is not capable of handling traffic numbers and Millions being spent to try to remedy bad decisions / Design.
You Couldn't Make It Up Could You?
Slobbin , unless you are on another planet the majority of the postings on here have been recognising the need for the continuation of the Northern Byepass, and this has been recognised since around the time the UNDERSIZED southern byepass was built during the 1980's but obviously only to cope until 2009, and with a Two Lane Bridge not designed for Widening when traffic congestion became a supposedly unforseen problem , and Geraghty had already made his mind up that there would not be a Northern Link Road, so I understand form news items that Government funding for this essential Northern link road were not applied for, So perhaps Geraghty (or Worcestershires very own Little Ceasor) just assumed that the government would refuse. And we are where we are, with a half built Ring Road and a section that is not capable of handling traffic numbers and Millions being spent to try to remedy bad decisions / Design. You Couldn't Make It Up Could You? Jabbadad
  • Score: 3

11:04pm Tue 20 May 14

Jabbadad says...

DON'T FORGET, GET OUT AND VOTE THURSDAY 22nd.
DON'T FORGET, GET OUT AND VOTE THURSDAY 22nd. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

8:41am Wed 21 May 14

themooman says...

YAWN ^^^^^
YAWN ^^^^^ themooman
  • Score: -8

8:46am Wed 21 May 14

Hwicce says...

themooman wrote:
we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!!
Sounds like you haven't a clue where the Northern Link road would be going.

It will run from Crown East roundabout, past Hallow, and join the Claines roundabout.

If anything it will REMOVE traffic from the Henwick Road as there will be a quicker alternative route.
[quote][p][bold]themooman[/bold] wrote: we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!![/p][/quote]Sounds like you haven't a clue where the Northern Link road would be going. It will run from Crown East roundabout, past Hallow, and join the Claines roundabout. If anything it will REMOVE traffic from the Henwick Road as there will be a quicker alternative route. Hwicce
  • Score: 10

10:03am Wed 21 May 14

Roger5 says...

There has been the perfect opportunity in the last year to justify a new northern link and bridge: the flooding demonstrated just how weakened Worcester's economy becomes, when the southern and central routes are flooded for days on end, which now seems to happen several times a year.

Why on earth would you spend money on Junction 6 improvements (£56m!!!) and a parkway station (which no-one is asking for) when there is a much better way to ease journeys for Worcestershire and Herefordshire people via a northern route?

It really is time to get rid of our inept local politicians!
There has been the perfect opportunity in the last year to justify a new northern link and bridge: the flooding demonstrated just how weakened Worcester's economy becomes, when the southern and central routes are flooded for days on end, which now seems to happen several times a year. Why on earth would you spend money on Junction 6 improvements (£56m!!!) and a parkway station (which no-one is asking for) when there is a much better way to ease journeys for Worcestershire and Herefordshire people via a northern route? It really is time to get rid of our inept local politicians! Roger5
  • Score: 3

1:43pm Wed 21 May 14

themooman says...

Hwicce wrote:
themooman wrote: we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!!
Sounds like you haven't a clue where the Northern Link road would be going. It will run from Crown East roundabout, past Hallow, and join the Claines roundabout. If anything it will REMOVE traffic from the Henwick Road as there will be a quicker alternative route.
nah mate, sounds like you dont have a clue where it is.

And even if you did its irrelevant because it wont happen thankfully.
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]themooman[/bold] wrote: we already have a link road in the south of the city so stop your moaning and accept this is the right decision!! A northern link road would just cause more congestion on the henwick road near the university - meaning local buisness like the wheatsheaf would suffer!![/p][/quote]Sounds like you haven't a clue where the Northern Link road would be going. It will run from Crown East roundabout, past Hallow, and join the Claines roundabout. If anything it will REMOVE traffic from the Henwick Road as there will be a quicker alternative route.[/p][/quote]nah mate, sounds like you dont have a clue where it is. And even if you did its irrelevant because it wont happen thankfully. themooman
  • Score: -9

7:02pm Wed 21 May 14

insidethebox says...

reflector wrote:
insidethebox wrote:
Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.
Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway?
Ha Ha
[quote][p][bold]reflector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]insidethebox[/bold] wrote: Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.[/p][/quote]Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway?[/p][/quote]Ha Ha insidethebox
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Wed 21 May 14

insidethebox says...

insidethebox wrote:
reflector wrote:
insidethebox wrote:
Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.
Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway?
Ha Ha
Thanks for your sympathy.
[quote][p][bold]insidethebox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reflector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]insidethebox[/bold] wrote: Stourport on Severn is bulging at the seams with houses and flats and suffers regular grid lock on the roads. We have been waiting for a relief road for over 30 years but the County Council don't think we need one. We could also do with a railway station and a decent bus service.[/p][/quote]Relief road - yes, better bus services - yes but why would Stourport want a railway station - surely it doesn't have a railway?[/p][/quote]Ha Ha[/p][/quote]Thanks for your sympathy. insidethebox
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 22 May 14

crustyoldgit says...

Jabbadad wrote:
DON'T FORGET, GET OUT AND VOTE THURSDAY 22nd.
absolutely ! vote UKIP...a vote for democracy ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: DON'T FORGET, GET OUT AND VOTE THURSDAY 22nd.[/p][/quote]absolutely ! vote UKIP...a vote for democracy ;-) crustyoldgit
  • Score: 1

5:00pm Fri 23 May 14

DeBrian Thronker says...

Guys, if I start an independent political party called 'Build the Northern Link Road', would you vote for me at the next elections?
Guys, if I start an independent political party called 'Build the Northern Link Road', would you vote for me at the next elections? DeBrian Thronker
  • Score: 7

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