Bridge Foot Traffic Congestion.

[algy]

Why not connect Park Boulevard to Slutchers Lane to reduce the traffic flow over the Bridge Foot from the A49 & A5060, I realise that it would throw more traffic to the west end of Wilson Patten Street but an efficient traffic management system could manage the traffic flow. Weight restrictions could be applied to the Centre Park bridge.

 

[Penguindust]

Plans to do this were mooted several years ago then two things happened at once the bridge over the railway by the station required strengthening and the previous government reduced funding for capital road schemes. At that time I think that the new Mersey Gateway Bridge was seen as a possible solution so the scheme was put on hold. Also there needed to be a change to the curve of the rail tracks. This proved to be a complex process with Network Rail but as far as recall its still on track ( See what i did there?). Certainly a solution needs to be found especially if the plans for the waterfront are to be successful. That whole area, including the bus garages is part of the redesign project. Again, like the Time Square redevelopment planned some years ago. I understand the council continue to seek funding in these very difficult times.

[Dizzy]

You'd be going right through the NWDA car park with that red road Algy.

 

Just under your red road and on the other side of the that building on your map there is what looks like a dead end road.  It's not actually though as there is already a through road there which links from Centre Park to Sutchers Lane.  The only reason you can't get down it is that there is a locked barrier across it  

 

Like Penguin has alread said though work to change Sutchers and the Railway bridge would be needed as it's not really a good road for constant traffic use and it's a right pain to get out of as it is.

[algy]

You'd be going right through the NWDA car park with that red road Algy.

 

Just under your red road and on the other side of the that building on your map there is what looks like a dead end road.  It's not actually though as there is already a through road there which links from Centre Park to Sutchers Lane.  The only reason you can't get down it is that there is a locked barrier across it

 

Like Penguin has alread said though work to change Sutchers and the Railway bridge would be needed as it's not really a good road for constant traffic use and it's a right pain to get out of as it is.

I didn't say it would be easy Diz, just that it is an option.

[Dizzy]

Sorry Algy... and I realised that. 

 

I wonder who gets to use the existing road through from there to Sutchers though as the barrier has a red 'traffic' light sort of thing on it as if it is an accessible through route for some people. 

 

OK so I did just detour and drive past it on my way back to make sure it was still there before someone corrected me and I felt like a muppet again  

[observer]

... and if they create a piaza at the bottom of Bridge St and take out one of the bridges (pedestrianised) giving foot access to the War Memorial - how would you organise the traffic?   A one way (clockwise) circulatory system perhaps, using your new link?

[Dizzy]

Surely taking out one of the bridges and making it pedestrainised would be bonkers Obs even the council are that daft.

[algy]

Obs, why would you need to take out one bridge and make it a one way system, leave that system as it is other than tweaking traffic lanes and have taffic heading for the north of the town continue using it as it does now, use park Boulevard as an optional route for traffic heading west of the town, as Pengy intimated it would need quite a large amount of revenue to execute it and also the involvement of the Network rail and if the money isn't available it's a 'dead duck' anyway so now point in getting wound up over the proposal.

[Bill]

What I don’t understand is what that lines used for. It’s a dead end that doesn’t actually go anywhere so why the heck do we need a bridge over it? British rail have had their fair use out of it and I reckon it’s about time that they gave it up and let the land be used for something better. As it is at the moment, it’s just a derelict rusting eyesore that’s compromising this town’s infrastructure and all its future development. 

 

Bill

[algy]

What I don’t understand is what that lines used for. It’s a dead end that doesn’t actually go anywhere so why the heck do we need a bridge over it? British rail have had their fair use out of it and I reckon it’s about time that they gave it up and let the land be used for something better. As it is at the moment, it’s just a derelict rusting eyesore that’s compromising this town’s infrastructure and all its future development. 

 

Bill

Bill it is used (unfortunately), any train coming down off the West Coast mainline that needs to travel west to Fiddlers Ferry, Ditton, Garston and on to liverpool has to reverse the wagons down the line that goes under the Wilderspool bridge and down to the buffers on Latchford sidings, then with a points change, move forward and under Bank Quay station on to the above destinations, there is no othe way of doing this!.

 

[observer]

Alg: think you have to look at this in big picture terms first. IF they want to do something with Bridge St and take pedestrianisation down to the river and IF it's accepted that Bridge Foot is currently a traffic choke point - think you need to look at some form of circulatory systems?

[algy]

Obs, taking your last point first, I don't accept that Bridge Foot being a traffic choke point is in doubt, and to me does not enter the equation, it is! a choke point, now to address your first point, accepting that the redevelopment of Bridge Street is desirable why would anyone in their right mind wish to point pedestrians to the banks of the River Mersey at Bridge Foot, it is predominately a fast flowing muddy coloured river with high and sheer banks having few visual attributes and unlike, let us say for example, the River Dee at Chester, does not lend itself to leisure activities such as boating or cruising, so why in God's name would anyone wish to stand and gaze at the River Mersey at Bridge Foot. Dizzy very eloquently questioned the need to take one bridge out to pedestrianise it, and said she thought it was a "bonkers" idea, I would go one step further and say it's an insane idea, why would anyone change the use of a perfectly good road bridge and pedestrianise it, when the object of the exercise is to improve the flow of traffic over the river?. To use an analogy, if you have a high pressure steam boiler, when in use it requires some form of safety device to prevent it from overpressurising and bursting, the fitting of a relief valve (presuming it is set to a lower pressure than than the vessels maximum working pressure) will ensure that the boiler can continue working safely, that is how I see the connection of Park Boulevard to Slutchers lane, purely a relief road taking traffic pressure away from Bridge Foot, dont get me wrong I can also see problems with the concept, such as possibly moving a congestion point from Bridge Foot to the Brian Bevan Island, however that could be managed. My casual observation regarding using Park Boulevard an alternitive route to take some of the volume of traffic away from Bridge Foot is at this moment in time, and judging that the lack of funds to carry out such a venture will not be made available for some time to come, a non starter,

[Dizzy]

..........why would anyone in their right mind wish to point pedestrians to the banks of the River Mersey at Bridge Foot, it is predominately a fast flowing muddy coloured river with high and sheer banks having few visual attributes.........

 

I quite agree Algy and it's a dismal eyesore BUT isn't that part of the reason for them wanting to revamp it all in the master plan?

 

 

 

Alg: think you have to look at this in big picture terms first. IF they want to do something with Bridge St and take pedestrianisation down to the river and IF it's accepted that Bridge Foot is currently a traffic choke point - think you need to look at some form of circulatory systems?

 

I just had a quick google at the Bridge Street Quarter Master Plan / Warrington Town Centre South Master Plan etc and I see what you mean about the pedestrianised bit down to the river now Obs.

 

The images don't actually seem to show one of the bridges being closed and pedestrianised though BUT THEY DO show the bit of road between the two bridges (ie on Mersey Street where it runs past the job centre) being completely pedestrianised with what looks like steps leading down to an amiptheatre type area on what currently is the grassed part of BF island. 

 

Looks quite nice actually and it will be a great place for all the late night revelers to relax and sober up whilst eating their kebabs (only kidding) 

 

I was going to screen dump and upload the pic but there is a copyright on it although it doesn't actually give any indication of HOW the road system would actually work then other than showing part of it cut off.

[observer]

.... which (your last para) is why, I'm suggesting we stand back and look at the whole picture first.  I'd hazard a guess that a large amount of the Bridge Foot traffic, is by-passing the Town C rather than wishing to enter it (likely to get worse, if Widnes start charching for their new bridge!). So a a series of ring roads, and perhaps a new bridge lower down Chester Rd?

[algy]

Dizz, as the old saying almost goes, "Faint Heart never put a frock on a pig"!.

 

Credit to Warrington Borough Council for an excellent illustration.

 

The  Town Centre master Plan - 2030 may be seen here:-

      http://sys.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/documents/warringtonandco/Images/Vision%202030%20Presentation%20AF%20LR_tcm37-57105.pdf

 

I have placed this illustration here for the information and enjoyment of WW Forum members,

 

Any objection to the displaying of this illustration and I shall remove it immediately.

 

The statemen below is not aimed at WBC but to replies to my topic on this forum.

 

An excellent proposal for 17 years in the future however it does not address the problem with the volume of traffic  being directed over the western bridge over the river the eastern bridge traffic appears to flow reasonably well. My original post was to address the increasing problem in the short term to help take pressure off Bridge Foot especially the east end of Wilson patten Street.

 

 

 

[Peter T]

I would have thought that phase 3 should be done first.

[observer]

Plans are a fine thing; but it helps if WBC would actually adhere to it's own plans!