Sefton Council is holding an online consultation on improvements to what it calls “The Maritime Corridor” – key sections of road in the Dunningsbridge Road area, including Dunningsbridge itself, Park Lane, Vesty Road to Deltic Way, Netherton Way, Bridle Road and Heysham Road.
You can access the consultation by clicking here.
The consultation has been open for nearly a month, but we almost missed it! The deadline for responses is Thursday 26th October.
We have responded as an organisation, but it’s really important that as many individuals as possible from South Sefton respond too, so we’d be very grateful if you took 15/20 minutes of your time to do the same.
The improvements are generally positive, with lots of provision for active travel; i.e. walking and cycling. Many of the changes proposed will increase both pedestrian and cyclist safety, connecting up different parts of the area. We obviously welcome these.
There are a couple of junction-widening proposals for cars/vans/HGVs which are of concern, as we know that these simply don’t address the overriding issue which is too many vehicles on our roads. Rather than making it easier for traffic to flow (which doesn’t actually work over time – just look at Broom’s Cross Road!), we need a complete re-think on the problem and to spend money on traffic reduction projects.
These are infinitely cheaper than costly roadworks, cause no disruption and will improve traffic flow, clean our air AND reduce CO2 emissions.
What’s not to love?!
Typically, these are targeted campaigns using ‘real’ data from big employment sites and number plate recognition to encourage commuters – and single occupancy vehicle commuters in particular, to either car-share with colleagues or others from the area, switch to active travel (walking/cycling), or to commute via public transport.
The systems and support exist to make this happen and it could start right now. We have recently written to both Sefton Council and our Metro Mayor asking them to trial this project here in Sefton. This work is already being done in Greater Manchester.
We maintain that this kind of spending is a far better use of public money, as it tackles the root cause of the problem and moves away from a “one more lane will fix it” (or even “one more road”?!) which is what’s desperately needed.
To help you respond to this consultation as quickly as possible, we’re providing some notes below for guidance only. It’s really important that responses are in your own words and reflect your views.
There are just 7 questions to answer: one intro question, then separate questions for each part of the scheme, ending with an equality survey.
The questions simply ask for your opinions on what is being proposed and there are useful graphics and videos to show you what the plans look like… although they obviously don’t depict the kind of traffic volumes we’re used to, just the odd car and bus… and we could only spot ONE HGV??!!
See if you can, too?
This is (roughly) what we said to each proposal:
1. Dunningsbridge Road
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision and ask for more information on what assessment has been made of the impact of moving bus stops, even though it’s a short distance. We also ask whether underpasses have been considered, as these would be safer than pedestrian crossings on such a busy route, with so much pollution. We also ask whether the established trees would remain, as these are important, natural barriers to air and noise pollution.
We express concern over the junction widening aspect as it does not address the issue of too many cars, vans and HGVs on the road. We are also concerned about the disruption that would be caused by working on the A5036, with traffic spilling on to other routes/finding other ways to travel. Rather, we suggest the money for this part of the proposal is better spent on traffic reduction schemes, outlined above.
2. Park Lane
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision and ask about established trees.
3. Vesty Road to Deltic Way
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision.
4. Netherton Way
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision, but express the same concerns over junction widening schemes, as outlined in response 1, above.
5. Bridle Road
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision and ask about established trees.
6. Heysham Road
We welcome the changes to walking and cycling provision, particularly that priority is being given to cyclists and pedestrians with this part of the scheme and ask about established trees.
