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.

Final Tenbury Futures Community Feedback Results

Based on a total of 289 Respondents.
Including  the final 49 additional returns - final week of February 2011:
[Click to enlarge] 

* Surrounding settlements include [but not limited to]:
Boraston, Kyrewood, Oldwood, St Michaels, Stoke Bliss, Rochford, Bickley, Nash, Leysters, Eardiston, Little Hereford, Brimfield, Hanley Broadheath, Clifton-upon Teme, Upper Sapey, Clee Hill and Ludlow.

[Click to enlarge]

Graphs that fed into the final overview graph:

[Click to enlarge]

Interim Analysis: 19th February, 2011

50 Additional Returns From The Following Areas:
[Mostly] Tenbury, [then] Burford followed by individuals from: Boraston, Kyrewood, Oldwood, Stoke Bliss, Rochford, Bickley, Nash, Leysters, Eardiston, Little Hereford, Brimfield, Hanley Broadheath, Clifton-upon Teme, Upper Sapey and Ludlow. Also with individual visitors from: Stourbridge, Caerphilly, Woodsetton nr Dudley and Chaddlewood nr Plymouth

 [Click to enlarge]

Individual Graphs That Fed Into The Overview Graph Above:

[Click to enlarge]

Interim Analysis: 13th February, 2011

25 Additional Returns From The Following Areas:
[Mostly] Tenbury, [then] Burford followed by individuals from: Broadheath, Boraston, Kyrewood, Stoke Bliss, Newnham Bridge, Clifton on Teme, Knighton on Teme, Clee Hill, Kimbolton and Stanford Bridge. Also with individual visitors from: Bayston Hill nr Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton and Bilton nr Rugby

[Click to enlarge]

Individual Graphs That Fed Into The Overview Graph Above:
[Click to enlarge]