kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
It's Stafford. Total chaos for no reason other than shit planning, as usual. All of it could have been shifted prior to the weekend
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Stafford Traffic.
- Thread starter captainpish
- Start date
I'm glad you posted that @gilesjuk . We'd been thinking it was close to finishing as we had our walks before leaving 12 weeks ago , and would have liked to have seen it all opened up.
Shame it didn't open up before we left.
Have they finished all the final houses yet?
Used to occassonally dare to take an unofficial short cut through years ago when the old HQ was there.... (checking the police dogs weren't out doing training first , didn't want to be the easier option than the man with the padded arm.....)
I think there's one house left being build next to where the office was, they delayed building the final one until all the homes were sold since the sales office was in the double garage for the last house.
As for the walking route. I use it on the evenings with one of the dogs (can only get the one out still), although there's one section without working street lights at the moment.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
See this is exactly what i'm talking about.
They didn't 'miss the chance to do that', "they" gave up on the EDR a long time ago.
Now...
... i would like you to try and validate that statement. Are you genuinely trying to say that it wouldn't cost 'much more' to make a road capable of taking, like, literally tons of load, rather than the footfall it is designed for?
Bearing in mind that Two Waters Way starts after a bridge that couldn't take heavy traffic, so if you were to make it useful in the way you want you'd have to break through an already built environment off Tilcon Avenue.
Well get you, you are able to see part of a bigger picture. Keep going, champ, it's all out there.
I would say that most of the expense would be the planning, all the bureaucracy involved and the labour to do the work. All of that is much the same work whether you do a road bridge or a pedestrian bridge. They had to do a lot of investigations into water levels to determine the height of the bridge and they would also determine the ground conditions so it doesn't sink.
So I think that the actual cost of the bridge (and mounting points) itself isn't much of an addition when scaled up to allow cars. There's already a weight limit on the canal bridge so HGVs still wouldn't be permitted down there. I was thinking of a like for like replacement for the footbridge. Not upgrading the route to allow HGVs.
Last edited:
Theresa Green
Well-Known Forumite
Yeah well I realise that there's probably all manner of other things now, air and noise pollution assessments and safety considerations.
Of course the foot and cycle bridge was not funded by the council anyway, it was part of some central government green fund. The planning itself for that route was terrible, the route should not have gone across the road. They could have had people go onto the canal towpath and then joined a path up from there. But that would have required more work and possibly buying up some land for the path. Plus involving the waterways people. Of course, you probably don't want a route which kids use to go next to the canal either?
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Access to the cycle path is not exactly difficult as it stands. But if it would make you feel better, why not ask the 'council' the to put in a traffic light controlled crossing?
After the reaction I got to my suggestion that permanent traffic lights should operate at St Thomas' Bridge, I'm sure you'll get a warm reception.
Mudgie
Well-Known Forumite
"All of that is much the same work whether you do a road bridge or a pedestrian bridge".
Road bridges look to be ten times more robust than pedestrian bridges and must cost far more.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Go for a mini-roundabout...
It's not an issue of having a crossing or not. It is an issue of visibility. The canal bridge is narrow and humped, you're also intensely focussed on the opposite lane to see if there's a car about to go over the bridge.
Makes no difference in this case as the council would never have built the footbridge unless they got central government funding. I doubt the council even cares about the roads.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Ooh, cracking idea. You thoroughly deserve a job working for Highways...
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
You (as in all drivers) should be focused on everything. If not, don't drive.
Besides any vehicles coming from the Baswich direction going too fast over the canal bridge will simply fly over any pedestrians before coming to an abrupt halt.
Human eyesight doesn't work like that. You have a hotspot in the middle of your eyesight where there's a big concentration of light sensitive cones and then the "peripheral" vision which is less sensitive.
I used to cross that road a lot when cycling and came to the conclusion it was easier to just roll over the canal bridge on the road then turn left. That wasn't much use on the way back though.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Have you tried using that defence in court?
With traffic lights?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
And humps.With traffic lights?
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Doesn't change the fact that it is true though. The condition retinitis pigmentosa proves this as the cones die out leaving the person with gradually narrower vision due to the peripheral vision having less cones. When you read a book, even though you can see the whole page why do you have to move your eyes from left to right to read the text?
Once you're over that bridge you have about 2-3 seconds before you're past the crossing point. That's not much time to react. People familiar with the area will know to be careful. Not sure everyone else will. There is a warning sign of course, but I had to check on streetview as I can't recall ever seeing one (road familiarity and all that).
Last edited: