Friday, 13 April 2012

Before Tesco - Teme Bridge Congestion

HGV mounts pavement behind disability scooter.
(Click to enlarge picture).

The reworked Teme Bridge has certainly seen work undertaken, but it's now even narrower in places than in the past. Many in the town have seen HGV's mounting the pavements in the past to try and get around the bend in the bridge but here's another example [above] which happened recently despite 'improvements' to the bridge. Of concern in this example is the senior citizen in the disability scooter who is clearly unaware of the large HGV looming-up behind him while it tries to get around the bend in the bridge. Issues around congestion and safety of pedestrians on the structure have been voiced before and clearly aren't going away .

The bridge has always seen busier periods in the day - this image showing just one of these in a late morning on a weekday. Tenbury Futures have long raised concerns about the Teme bridge's ability to cope with the growing modern traffic numbers if faces and here is just one of many ongoing snarl-ups caught on camera.. It's worthwhile pointing out of course that all this is happening before either any works are carried-out on the town's cattle market site or increases brought on by subsequent store traffic.. 

We raised the spectre of "Massive additional congestion" on our past posters in the town if a supermarket was given the go-ahead.. The bridge is clearly suffering issues around both traffic and safety of pedestrians even before a supermarket build - were we right to raise concerns? 

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Tenbury Wells - Teme Bridge Letter

Please see below a copy of a letter sent to both Peter Blake, Head of Integrated Transport, Worcester County Council and the Shropshire County Council Bridge Section.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Teme Bridge Tenbury Wells
I write to express my concern at the treatment of the refurbished Teme Bridge, Tenbury Wells as suitable for unrestricted use in both directions simultaneously.
Department of Transport and SCC literature indicate that a normal two-way road should be at least 5.5m wide and that below this width a road should not normally have a centre line. Indeed, I understand that Worcs CC has specifically refused to provide a centre line elsewhere in response to more than one request from a parish council on the grounds that the road is less than 5.5m wide.

The Teme Bridge at the kink in the middle of the bridge appears to be 4.9m; in Shropshire just before the bridge proper, 4.8m - yet the bridge has a centre line.
The maximum permitted width of an HGV (excluding mirrors) is 2.6m if refrigerated, 2.55m if not. The maximum permitted width of a bus is 2.55m.

Therefore two full-size lorries (or buses) can only pass on the bridge (or on the approach) if at least one uses the pavement.
Given the above, would you please explain how this part of the A4112 can merit a centre line or indeed how it can even be considered a two-way road.

If you do consider the road to be suitable for two-way simultaneous use, would you please advise how you reconcile this with the clear safety (and legal) issues of one or more of two passing HGVs or buses having to mount the pavement.
You may not be aware, but at least three accidents occurred in the first 24 hours of the bridge being open again, in my view simply underlining the safety issue.

I look forward to your response; clearly time is of the essence if an injury or, worse, a fatality, is to be avoided.
Yours sincerely,

The Tenbury Futures Group.