DOCSLIB.ORG

Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal Richard Ward PINS Reference 3253194; 3253230; and 3253232 Parkside Development New Link Road Access to the M6 Motorway Proposal Page 1 of 20 June 2020 Current Link Road proposal as shown in the Drainage Plan Page 2 of 20 The Current Proposal for the Parkside Link Road by not being a dedicated direct link to the M6 motorway, the Commercial Vehicle Traffic that will be generated by the proposed development(s) in total will impact on the local roads from all directions as measures to prevent are impossible to manage. The following plan of road access to the proposed Parkside development show the Commercial Vehicle Traffic impact on the Local Roads. Where the utilisation of the Motorway M6 junction 22 will be little used with respect to the access to the proposed development from the local roads. The Access was not solved by the previous Parkside Proposals by the developers: 1996 British Coal/Morrisons; 2000+ RailTrack; 2004-2009 Astral Developments; and 2009-2012 Prologis. To whom all had withdrawn due to not being able to solve the Traffic situation, over and above the reason for the development for the need for jobs which has become secondary and not a main issue considering the Parkside proposals having been an issue since 1993 to 2018, (ie 25 years). So the need for jobs is still not the issue the traffic impact still is the issue purely due to the urban location surrounded by a major road infrastructure. It is this that is the problem, due to heavily industrialising an area that the surrounding locality can not cope with the proposed situation – traffic wise. The Parkside site true is prime for development as the main restoration criteria of return to Agriculture has been denied by the new owners since 1993. Several schemes could be situated that would provide employment and more on the same scale of the former Parkside Colliery site, where the traffic problem would not exist. One solution is to develop the site into a University Campus, instead of the pursuit of a rail terminal and warehousing complex. Where in the area Warehousing is in abundance. It is stated that there is an expected growth in population currently (2010) in the Northwest of 6.9M (Carlisle to Chester, to Manchester to Liverpool), expected to grow to 7.4M by 3030-2035 ie 500,000. This equates to a growth in population of approximately 20,000 per Council area. So The Warehousing development is required to serve only 20,000 expected growth by 2030-2035. So what is the need for Parkside as a warehousing development for an estimated job creation of 7,500 to 9,000 jobs to cater for just 20,000 predicted growth in population to 2035? Note I do not see the 6.9M current population banging on doors demanding the Warehouse goods transported by containers (ie White Goods, Food and Cloths). This is because the current infrastructure already copes, so the future expansion in warehousing is only for future population growth, as said 20,000 per council area. This means Parkside Colliery site needs to be seriously rethought and step away from the over saturated warehousing containers schemes as proposed since 1994. For if warehousing had been correct for Parkside the site would have been developed in 1994, and not been an ongoing blinkered approach by the council. The Coal extraction was in 1956 only a temporary phase expected to last for 100 years, but due to the placing of the colliery in the wrong area the expected production could never be realised and economics closed the colliery. Not a fault of those who worked the colliery but those who made the decision to place the colliery in the wrong area in the first place. The situation is identical with the scheme proposed after the colliery closed, with warehousing, but this time due to the proposal looking to rely on the local road network. The Problem that the current proposed development in 2018 by the developer St Helens Council and Langtree in trying to solve the M6 access causes the local road network to grid lock over and above the current situation. This is shown in the following plan. Page 3 of 20 Page 4 of 20 The previous Traffic flow problem places a direct impact upon the local road network that consequently impacts on all the surrounding areas, as shown. This is all due to the proposed development connection to the Motorway M6 at junction 22 by an indirect road network that uses the local roads to achieve the site to work, rather that creating a direct dedicated connection to the M6. This incidently was an aspect that the public inquiries in St Helens Council UDP 1996-1997 and the Swayfields M6 service station circa 2000-2001 was discussed and recommended. The proposed development in effect when looked at seriously is in effect the same development as proposed by British Coal/Morrisons application and St Helens Council UDP circa 1994-1998 where the Public Inquiry Inspector refused the proposals. The currect link road does not achieve isolation as claimed as shown in the previous plan on traffic flow and local road separation, all due to being an indirect route to the motorway system. This is in-effect a very cheap solution solves the problem on paper but not in reality. Though if Parkside is really required in the current logistics on container movements to provide savings for the logistics companies. With the growth in container movements relatively static. The logistic efficiency of Container movements is prime. A container full moved from A to B sounds fine on paper, but the cost of returning the empty container from B to A is the main concern these days. To transport an empty container is an expensive logistic company (shipping or otherwise) are finding ways to reduce. A Ship could have circa 20% of the containers being empty a very expensive cost. No modelling of any development considers this hidden environmental cost, as empty containers to be require stored, somewhere. This will be an environmental cost that even the proposed development at Parkside will have to bear, it can not be brush under the carpet so to say. For example: To move 20,000 TEU containers by sea use to be by several ships, transporting 3000, or 5000 or even 10,000 containers. Now the logistics companies are looking to save fuel with new ships that carry 20,000 containers plus. The cost of a container depends upon time required from A to B, the value of the goods, whether perishable or not, with most goods originating from China new routes are being developed the China Silk Road by train to Europe is booming but the cost has to be paid “Firms would likely need to charge $10,000 per container to make a profit but subsidies allowed many to charge about $3,000 to $6,000 per container. Some were offering rates as low as $1,000 per container, about the same as shipping by sea” (Reuters, 27 June 2018). Could Parkside warrant this cost per container? The same logistics savings are also currently taking place on land. Warehouses with robots, minimal exchange of containers to the destination. All to save costs and create more profit, Employment is at the bottom of the list and the first to go when savings are the prime mover. So if Parkside does warrant being created as a warehouse white elephant (incidently the name the miners called Parkside colliery), then a direct link to the motorway M6 is imperative and not an indirect link. As St Helens Council the developers of the link road and finance is their main concern a pure new junction is feasible that solves the access and traffic problems. But there is a cost though. But not insurmountable that is the A573 will have to be closed but this has been commented upon as not being an important road. In 1695 Dr. Richard Kuerden stated in his post road description of Winwick that the road to the east of Winwick Church is the lesser used road to Wigan. (Today known as the A573 - Golborne Road/Parkside Road). (Dr Richard Kuerden’s 1695 manuscript Chetham’s Library, Manchester translated and published in “Local Gleanings” edited by J.P. Earwaker.) Page 5 of 20 A573 Parkside Road/Golborne Road at Hermitage Green One flaw in the design of the Whole multi-part Project is the entrance and exit route from the A49 Winwick Road to the A573 Parkside Road. When Commercial vehicles turn right on to the A573 Parkside Road and continue towards Winwick via A573 Golborne Road; the hamlet/village of Hermitage Green is situated on the A573 where, due to a designated historical location of where King Oswald was slain (St Oswald's Well), the ancient road layout diverts around this very important historical site, via a “S” bend of the A573 Golborne Road. This “S” bend is a sharp and narrow road that has two 90degree diversion to the road direction. The road having two sharp bends is a point of contention with regards to the proposed whole multi-part project, for commercial vehicles travelling to and from the Parkside east/Parkside west developments of the project. With a new traffic light system expected to be utilised of the Project entry/exit on the A573. Several commercial vehicles will exit the site heading to the Hermitage Green “S” bend. Several scenarios can be assumed: ● If the traffic from Winwick on the A573 to the new traffic lights is stationary to well past the “S” bend the junction is in gridlock.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (1202 Sq M) Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, Junction 10
    Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, Junction 10 M53, CH2 4HY High quality office accommodation 1,545 sq ft (144 sq m) to 12,940 sq ft (1202 sq m) Enter COLISEUM RETAIL PARK McDONALD’S CHESHIRE OAKS M53 MARKS & SPENCER SAINSBURYS HARLEY DAVIDSON Aerial Location MITCHELL GROUP LEXUS Description B5132 J10 Availability Terms A5117 Contact EPC Certificates Download Print Exit A5058 TO THE NORTH Location 10/21A M57 TO MANCHESTER 1 LIVERPOOL AND THE EAST The Oaks Office Park occupies a highly MERSEY TUNNELS 6/1 M62 BIRKENHEAD prominent position off Stanney Mill Road, A5300 WARRINGTON MANCHESTER AIRPORT immediately adjacent to Junction 10 of A561 WIDNES M53 RUNCORN BRIDGE 9/20/20A the M53 mid Wirral motorway and less N A41 LIVERPOOL JOHN RUNCORN LENNONAIRPORT than 1 mile from the M56/M53 M56 A49 interchange. Ellesmere Port and Chester A533 M6 are approximately 1 mile and 7 miles ELLESMERE PORT A550 away respectively. NORTHWICH 11/15 A533 There are a wide range of amenities A5517 A54 A56 A55 QUEENSFERRY 12 available at Cheshire Oaks including the WINSFORD TO NORTH WALES CHESTER Designer Outlet Village, the new Marks & & ANGLESEY BIRMINGHAM Spencer, Coliseum Leisure Park and the AND THE A51 SOUTH A55 Travel Lodge hotel. All are readily A494 A530 accessible from the Oaks Office Park RUTHIN A483 A51 being situated directly opposite on the CREWE A534 western side of the motorway, also served by J10. NANTWICH M53 A41 STANNEY MILL ROAD WREXHAM CHESHIRE OAKS COLISEUM WAY TO SNOWDONIA NATIONAL PARK A530 A529 STANNEY MILL LANE Aerial COLISEUM Drive Times CHESHIRE Location OAKS WAY Destination Distance Drive Time COLISEUM WAY (miles) (minutes) Description A5117 B5132 J10 Availability M56 motorway 1 2 LONGLOOMS ROAD BLUE STANNEY LANE PLANET Chester 7 10 AQUARIUM BLUE A5117 Terms PLANE M6 motorway 20 25 AQUARIUM Contact Liverpool Airport 23 32 M53 Manchester Airport 30 25 EPC Certificates Download Print Exit Description The development comprises a two storey terrace providing four self-contained office buildings with ample car parking.
    [Show full text]
  • 160 Great Britain for Updates, Visit Wigan 27 28
    160 Great Britain For Updates, visit www.routex.com Wigan 27 28 Birkenhead Liverpool M62 36 Manchester Stockport M56 Mold Chester 35 Congleton Wrexham 59 M6 Shrewsbury 64 65 07 Wolverhampton Walsall West Bromwich Llandrindod Birmingham Wells Solihull M6 03 Coventry Warwick02 Carmarthen Hereford 01 51 60 Neath M5 Swansea 06 Pontypridd Bridgend Caerphilly Newport Cardiff M4 13 Barry Swindon M5 Bristol 61 14 Weston-super-Mare Kingswood 31 Bath 32 M4 05 Trowbridge 62 Newbury Taunton M5 20 Yeovil Winchester Exeter Southampton 55 Exmouth M27 Poole Lymington Bournemouth Plymouth Torbay Newport GB_Landkarte.indd 160 05.11.12 12:44 Great Britain 161 Wakefield 16 Huddersfield Hull Barnsley Doncaster Scunthorpe Grimsby Rotherham Sheffield M1 Louth 47M1 Heanor Derby Nottingham 48 24 Grantham 15 Loughborough 42 King's Leicester Lynn 39 40 Aylsham Peterborough Coventry Norwich GB 46 01 Warwick Huntingdon Thetford Lowestoft 45 M1 Northampton 02 43 44 Cambridge Milton Bedford Keynes Biggleswade Sawston 18 M40 19 Ipswich Luton Aylesbury Oxford Felixstowe Hertford 21 50 M25 M11 Chelmsford 61 30 53 52 Slough London Bracknell Southend-on-Sea Newbury Grays 54 Wokingham 29 Rochester Basingstoke 22 M3 Guildford M2 M25 Maidstone Winchester 23 M20 17 M27 Portsmouth Chichester Brighton La Manche Calais Newport A16 A26 Boulogne-sur-Mer GB_Landkarte.indd 161 05.11.12 12:44 162 Great Britain Forfar Perth Dundee 58 Stirling Alloa 34 Greenock M90 Dumbarton Kirkintilloch Dunfermline 57 Falkirk Glasgow Paisley Livingston Edinburgh Newton M8 Haddington Mearns 04 56 Dalkeith 26 Irvine Kilmarnock Ayr Hawick A74(M) 41 Dumfries 25 Morpeth Newcastle Carlisle Upon Whitley Bay 12Tyne 08 South Shields Gateshead 09 11 Durham 49 Redcar 33 Stockton-on-Tees M6 Middlesbrough 10 38 M6 A1(M) 37 Harrogate York 63 M65 Bradford Leeds Beverley M6 28 M62 Wakefield Wigan 16 27 Huddersfield Birkenhead Liverpool Manchester Barnsley M62 Scunthorpe 35 36Stockport Doncaster Rotherham Sheffield GB_Landkarte.indd 162 05.11.12 12:44 Great Britain 163 GPS Nr.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Consultation Report – December 2015
    Public Consultation Report – December 2015 M6 Junction 10 Improvements Contents Section Title Page/s 1 Introduction 3-5 1.1 Main Objectives 3 1.2 Scheme Options 4 1.3 Project Timescale 5 2 Consultation exercise 6-9 2.1 Overview 6-7 2.2 Promoting the consultation 8 2.3 Questionnaires 9 3 Questionnaire results and analysis 10-18 3.1 Travel behaviour 10-12 3.2 Proposed improvement 13-18 4.0 Conclusion 19 5.0 Further information - contact details 20 6.0 Appendices 21 2 1.0 Introduction Walsall Council is working in partnership with Highways England to improve Junction 10 of the M6 motorway (M6J10). As a busy route between Walsall and Wolverhampton, the junction is often heavily congested and this reduces the attractiveness of the local area for business and investment, including within the nearby Black Country Enterprise Zone. Walsall Council and Highways England are developing plans to provide a long term improvement to M6 Junction 10. The non-statutory public consultation events held in December 2015 presented the current scheme options and sought comments and feedback to inform the final decision and help shape the design. 1.1 Main objectives of the scheme There are three main objectives of the M6J10 scheme. The first objective is to reduce congestion. By improving M6J10, congestion can be reduced on the A454 Black Country Route eastbound to improve journey time reliability. This is critical to the needs of local residents, businesses and the 120 hectares of developable land within the nearby Black Country Enterprise Zone. Congestion can be reduced on other roads linking to the junction, such as A454 Wolverhampton Road, B4464 Wolverhampton Road West and Bloxwich Lane, reducing ‘rat-running’ traffic on nearby routes parallel to the A454 Black Country Route, the A454 Wolverhampton Road and the B4464 Wolverhampton Road West.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnerships Financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020
    EUROPEAN PPP EXPERTISE CENTRE Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Terms of Use of this Publication The European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) is part of the Advisory Services of the European Investment Bank (EIB). It is an initiative that also involves the European Commission, Member States of the EU, Candidate States and certain other States. For more information about EPEC and its membership, please visit www.eib.org/epec. The findings, analyses, interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the EIB or any other EPEC member. No EPEC member, including the EIB, accepts any responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in this publication or any liability for any consequences arising from its use. Reliance on the information provided in this publication is therefore at the sole risk of the user. EPEC authorises the users of this publication to access, download, display, reproduce and print its content subject to the following conditions: (i) when using the content of this document, users should attribute the source of the material and (ii) under no circumstances should there be commercial exploitation of this document or its content. Purpose and Methodology This report is part of EPEC’s work on monitoring developments in the public-private partnership (PPP) market. It is intended to provide an overview of the role played by the EIB in financing PPP projects inside and outside of Europe since 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • CD 521 Hydraulic Design of Road Edge Surface Water Channels and Outlets
    Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Drainage Design CD 521 Hydraulic design of road edge surface water channels and outlets (formerly HA 37/17, HA 78/96, HA 113/05, HA 119/06) Revision 1 Summary This document gives requirements and guidance for the design of road edge surface water channels and outlets, combined channel and pipe systems for surface water drainage, and grassed surface water channels on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads. Application by Overseeing Organisations Any specific requirements for Overseeing Organisations alternative or supplementary to those given in this document are given in National Application Annexes to this document. Feedback and Enquiries Users of this document are encouraged to raise any enquiries and/or provide feedback on the content and usage of this document to the dedicated Highways England team. The email address for all enquiries and feedback is: [email protected] This is a controlled document. CD 521 Revision 1 Contents Contents Release notes 4 Foreword 5 Publishing information ................................................ 5 Contractual and legal considerations ........................................ 5 Introduction 6 Background ...................................................... 6 Assumptions made in the preparation of this document ............................. 6 Mutual Recognition .................................................. 6 Abbreviations and symbols 7 Terms and definitions 11 1. Scope 13 Aspects covered ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Location & Directions
    LOCATION & DIRECTIONS Renaissance Manchester Hotel Start Here M60 To Blackfriars Street, Manchester M3 2EQ. Junction 17 Burnley Southbound Tel: 0161 831 6000, Fax: 0161 819 2458 Great email: [email protected] Ducie A Street 5 6 www.renaissancehotels.com 042 A6 New Bridge Street V i y c a t B W o l a y r t i c i a k in M.E.N. f r S r T i 6 t a r Arena Start Here 6 r e s 0 Victoria e S M602 5 t t A Station r St. Ann’s 6 A e Junction 1 e Church 3 t Eastbound 6 0 5 A The M To M60 Cathedral Printworks Parsonage 60 A6 B Gardens ge 2 M62 & M61 la sona New c he Par Harvey Chapel k T Bailey fr S Nicholls Street ia Urbis t M Street rs a S Museum ry t 's re Ga e Cannon te t Street te ARNDALE ga ns SHOPPING ea Salford St CENTRE D Royal M Central ar Exchange y's Ga t te e KENDALS K re ll ing t e S S Irw tre ss er To J et ro iv oh C R M Piccadilly n 6 a D 5 t rk Station al e e to A e t S n tr t S S re t A e re s t e 5 t e s 7 Opera t o a r g C House s t n e a John Dalton e e tr D Street S in Q ta ua n The hotel is in the heart of the City Centre, y u St o ree F t P t Albert ri R e nc Blackfriars Street is on the corner of Deansgate.
    [Show full text]
  • Matakana Link Road Public Consultation Feedback
    Matakana link road Public Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 AT.govt.nz Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Project Development ..................................................................................... 5 1.2 Public Consultation ....................................................................................... 6 2. Feedback Received ..................................................................................................... 8 Question 1 – Which option do you prefer? ................................................................... 9 Question 4 – How would you use the road? .................................................................. 9 Questions 2, 3, 5 & 6 – Issues and Constraints (Key themes identified) ................... 10 3. Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 22 4. Conclusion................................................................................................................. 22 5. Appendix A. Consultation feedback ........................................................................ 23 2 Executive Summary In April 2017, Auckland Transport (AT) sought public feedback on the four short-listed options for the proposed Matakana Link Road. Feedback on the short-listed options was invited from 26 April to 20 May 2017. Submitters were asked to identify their preferred route option (see map
    [Show full text]
  • The M56 Motorway (Junctions 9-7 Westbound and Eastbound Carriageways and Slip Road) and the M6 Motorway (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2015
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2015 No. 1012 ROAD TRAFFIC The M56 Motorway (Junctions 9-7 Westbound and Eastbound Carriageways and Slip Road) and the M6 Motorway (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2015 Made - - - - 21st January 2015 Coming into force - - 6th February 2015 WHEREAS the Secretary of State for Transport, being the traffic authority for the M56 and M6 Motorways and their slip and link roads, is satisfied that traffic on the M56 Motorway and on one slip road and one link road in Cheshire East should be prohibited because works are proposed to be executed thereon: NOW, THEREFORE, the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 (1) (a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (a) , hereby makes the following Order:- 1. This Order may be cited as the M56 Motorway (Junctions 9-7 Westbound and Eastbound Carriageways and Slip Roads) and the M6 Motorway (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2015 and shall come into force on the 6th February 2015. 2. In this Order: “the motorway” means the M56 Motorway between Junctions 9-7; “works” means replacement of overhead conductors and lines works; “the tip of the nosing of the exit slip road” means the last point at which the slip road leaves the carriageway of the motorway; “the tip of the nosing of the entry slip road” means the first point at which the slip road joins the carriageway of the motorway; “the works period” means periods overnight between 2200 hours and 0600 hours during the following periods: i. starting on Saturday 7th February 2015 and ending on Sunday 8th February 2015; and ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Network Selection for Small-Scale Maps Using an Improved Centrality-Based Algorithm
    JOURNAL OF SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE Number 9 (2014), pp. 71–99 doi:10.5311/JOSIS.2014.9.166 RESEARCH ARTICLE Road network selection for small-scale maps using an improved centrality-based algorithm Roy Weiss and Robert Weibel Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Received: January 31, 2014; returned: March 13, 2014; revised: July 29, 2014; accepted: August 18, 2014. Abstract: The road network is one of the key feature classes in topographic maps and databases. In the task of deriving road networks for products at smaller scales, road net- work selection forms a prerequisite for all other generalization operators, and is thus a fun- damental operation in the overall process of topographic map and database production. The objective of this work was to develop an algorithm for automated road network selec- tion from a large-scale (1:10,000) to a small-scale database (1:200,000). The project was pur- sued in collaboration with swisstopo, the national mapping agency of Switzerland, with generic mapping requirements in mind. Preliminary experiments suggested that a selec- tion algorithm based on betweenness centrality performed best for this purpose, yet also exposed problems. The main contribution of this paper thus consists of four extensions that address deficiencies of the basic centrality-based algorithm and lead to a significant improvement of the results. The first two extensions improve the formation of strokes concatenating the road segments, which is crucial since strokes provide the foundation upon which the network centrality measure is computed. Thus, the first extension en- sures that roundabouts are detected and collapsed, thus avoiding interruptions of strokes by roundabouts, while the second introduces additional semantics in the process of stroke formation, allowing longer and more plausible strokes to built.
    [Show full text]
  • M6 Junction 19 Improvements Community Newsletter
    M6 junction 19 improvements Community newsletter November 2020 View south across M6 junction 19 showing the site Hello and welcome to the third issue of our installed new temporary signals. This allowed us to M6 junction 19 community newsletter. start the next phase of improvements, including widening the A556 northbound as you leave the There’s been a lot of activity on our site since our last junction. You may have also noticed that we’ve added newsletter in July. You’ll have probably noticed some a new yellow box across the lanes on the Tabley side of the changes taking place on the roundabout as of the roundabout, as you exit onto the A556 south. well as within the junction. We’ve already noticed an improvement with traffic We completed the bridge foundations, as planned, moving more freely around the roundabout and in the summer and we’ve since started to build the reduced congestion during busy periods. bridge walls on either side of the carriageway and We hope you continue to find these regular updates within the centre of the motorway. Once these are useful. Thanks again to those of you who’ve been in complete, we’ll then be ready to lift the bridge beams touch to ask questions; we welcome all feedback into place early in 2021. Read more about this inside. about the scheme. Please look out for our next In September, we removed existing street lighting, newsletter, which will be sent to you early in the traffic lights and signage on the roundabout and new year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Putney Road Link Road Scheme
    The Putney Road Link Road Scheme: Why the Council should think again about building this link road Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Is Putney Road suitable for use as a link road? 1 3. Is the Putney Road scheme linked to an Evesham Road scheme? 2 4. Does the Putney Road scheme meet its objectives? 2 5. What are the outcomes from the Putney Road scheme? 3 6. Are the Putney Road scheme outcomes positive? 4 7. Overall conclusions about outcomes and objectives 5 8. Will it reduce rat-running? 6 9. How good is the traffic modelling? 7 10. Testing the traffic model 8 11. Count point accuracy 8 12. Conclusions about the scheme and concluding comments 11 13. The conduct of the bid and the consultation 12 0 The Putney Road Link Road Scheme: Why the Council should think again about building this link road 1. Introduction The Putney Road Link Road scheme will create a new junction where Putney Road West meets Aylestone Road/Saffron Lane, and create a link road running through to Welford Road/Victoria Park Road. Although it is intended to create a new local access to the business area, the main purpose of the scheme is the creation of the link road which at this stage will extend to the A6 London Road through Victoria Park Road. Although the council claims this scheme is not connected with a further scheme, linking Aylestone Road to Narborough Road through Evesham Road, it is self-evident that it is, and the council says this in the bid for the funding for this first stage.
    [Show full text]
  • DN-GEO-03031 June 2017 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS
    Rural Road Link Design DN-GEO-03031 June 2017 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS About TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible for managing and improving the country’s national road and light rail networks. About TII Publications TII maintains an online suite of technical publications, which is managed through the TII Publications website. The contents of TII Publications is clearly split into ‘Standards’ and ‘Technical’ documentation. All documentation for implementation on TII schemes is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Standards), and all other documentation within the system is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Technical). Document Attributes Each document within TII Publications has a range of attributes associated with it, which allows for efficient access and retrieval of the document from the website. These attributes are also contained on the inside cover of each current document, for reference. TII Publication Title Rural Road Link Design TII Publication Number DN-GEO-03031 Activity Design (DN) Document Set Standards Stream Geometry (GEO) Publication Date June 2017 Document 03031 Historical NRA TD 9 Number Reference TII Publications Website This document is part of the TII publications system all of which is available free of charge at http://www.tiipublications.ie. For more information on the TII Publications system or to access further TII Publications documentation, please refer to the TII Publications website. TII Authorisation and Contact Details This document
    [Show full text]