War of words over Warburton Toll Bridge plan

Clr Bob Barr

Clr Sheila Woodyatt

First published in News

TRAFFIC delays caused by Thelwall Viaduct closures could soon be reduced under plans to cut tolls on Warburton Toll Bridge.

Councillors heard how Peel Ports Holdings is close to signing up to a scheme which would see them drop the 12p tariff if the bridge was closed to help alleviate congestion.

Liberal Democrat Clr Bob Barr put forward a motion at full council on Monday calling on Peel to lift restrictions when tailbacks on the bridge formed.

But the party was accused of ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ as plans to cut the levy when the bridge is shut already close to agreement.

Clr Barr (LD - Lymm) said: “I am not asking for them to stop tolling altogether, simply to stop tolling when the tailbacks from the toll booth exceed some agreed limit. “I understand that Peel has already agreed to consider stopping tolling at Warburton when the Thelwall viaduct is closed which is a move in the right direction.

“We want Peel to become good neighbours to the people of Warrington, Salford and Trafford. At minimal cost they can stop causing unnecessary congestion, stop wasting our residents’ time and causing air pollution, by forgoing their right to collect a tiny toll.

“Tolling at all times is not the action of a constructive partner in the economic development of the north west but could be viewed as the action of a greedy bully.”

But Clr Sheila Woodyatt (CON - Lymm) hit back.

She said: “This motion is a typical example of the Lib Dems jumping on a bandwagon which is already rolling.

“I’m in no doubt in the next batch of ‘out of Focus’ leaflets they will take any credit for any good that comes out of this even though the amendments were an all party agreement.”

Clr Linda Dirir (LAB - Penketh and Cuerdley) added: “This part of the memorandum has been before Peel Ports for at least eight months, never in those meetings with them have they quibbled about this, they say they can see the sense and are happy to apply it.

“We don’t think a campaign is necessary, we are almost there.”

Councillors approved the motion following a change to say the tolls would be lifted when Thewlall Bridge was closed.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:43pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Irate Irlam resident says...

As it currently takes me 45 minutes to do a 20 minute journey, I would welcome any change to the ridiculous hold up's we suffer morning and night just to pay 12 pence. I have no objection to paying the 12 pence if only they would be aware that when you reach there you have been sitting in traffic for up to 30 minutes to do it. On a fine dry evening why can't one of them climb out of the box and walk along the long queue and collect the money just to get the traffic moving? Last time the toll booth was closed the traffic flow was so much better, no hold ups at all and a 20 minute journey was just that. This long ritual of waiting to pay infuriates so many people, and is very unfair when you are going to work for the day or worse coming home after a long day! I really think it is time something was done permanently to cure this major problem.
As it currently takes me 45 minutes to do a 20 minute journey, I would welcome any change to the ridiculous hold up's we suffer morning and night just to pay 12 pence. I have no objection to paying the 12 pence if only they would be aware that when you reach there you have been sitting in traffic for up to 30 minutes to do it. On a fine dry evening why can't one of them climb out of the box and walk along the long queue and collect the money just to get the traffic moving? Last time the toll booth was closed the traffic flow was so much better, no hold ups at all and a 20 minute journey was just that. This long ritual of waiting to pay infuriates so many people, and is very unfair when you are going to work for the day or worse coming home after a long day! I really think it is time something was done permanently to cure this major problem. Irate Irlam resident
  • Score: 14

1:59pm Wed 26 Mar 14

StopTheToll says...

Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys.
Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys. StopTheToll
  • Score: 11

4:52pm Wed 26 Mar 14

PageA says...

You're nearing the end of your negotiations and a local councillor..in a roundabout way..calls them Greedy Bullies. That's gonna help...not
You're nearing the end of your negotiations and a local councillor..in a roundabout way..calls them Greedy Bullies. That's gonna help...not PageA
  • Score: 4

8:28pm Wed 26 Mar 14

grey-area says...

PageA wrote:
You're nearing the end of your negotiations and a local councillor..in a roundabout way..calls them Greedy Bullies. That's gonna help...not
Agreed. Seems to happen a lot these days at WBC.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: You're nearing the end of your negotiations and a local councillor..in a roundabout way..calls them Greedy Bullies. That's gonna help...not[/p][/quote]Agreed. Seems to happen a lot these days at WBC. grey-area
  • Score: 9

7:57am Thu 27 Mar 14

Nick Tessla says...

StopTheToll wrote:
Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys.
Why, you ask. The 12p pays for the maintenance of the bridge.
[quote][p][bold]StopTheToll[/bold] wrote: Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys.[/p][/quote]Why, you ask. The 12p pays for the maintenance of the bridge. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 4

11:32am Thu 27 Mar 14

Robert Barr says...

If the negotiations have delivered too little from Peel, and the Council is asking too little of them, people need to know. Peel is probably the most powerful and important company in the NW. We need to ensure that the balance between the interests of their shareholders and the people in the NW is right. Rolling over for Peel will not achieve that. We need a constructive relationship not one that simply gives them all they want.

I am pleased that some correspondents, in particular those affected, realise that the Warburton tolling at peak times is a problem that could easily be overcome and compromise is possible. But only offering to stop tolling when the Thelwall Viaduct is CLOSED is nowhere near good enough.

Bob Barr
If the negotiations have delivered too little from Peel, and the Council is asking too little of them, people need to know. Peel is probably the most powerful and important company in the NW. We need to ensure that the balance between the interests of their shareholders and the people in the NW is right. Rolling over for Peel will not achieve that. We need a constructive relationship not one that simply gives them all they want. I am pleased that some correspondents, in particular those affected, realise that the Warburton tolling at peak times is a problem that could easily be overcome and compromise is possible. But only offering to stop tolling when the Thelwall Viaduct is CLOSED is nowhere near good enough. Bob Barr Robert Barr
  • Score: 2

11:43pm Thu 27 Mar 14

PageA says...

Robert Barr wrote:
If the negotiations have delivered too little from Peel, and the Council is asking too little of them, people need to know. Peel is probably the most powerful and important company in the NW. We need to ensure that the balance between the interests of their shareholders and the people in the NW is right. Rolling over for Peel will not achieve that. We need a constructive relationship not one that simply gives them all they want.

I am pleased that some correspondents, in particular those affected, realise that the Warburton tolling at peak times is a problem that could easily be overcome and compromise is possible. But only offering to stop tolling when the Thelwall Viaduct is CLOSED is nowhere near good enough.

Bob Barr
I think your comments are inflammatory and imprudent Bob. You say you need to ensure that the balance is right but that is all down to the goodwill of Peel holdings. If the council takes an aggressive approach they will reciprocate and it's us that will suffer.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Barr[/bold] wrote: If the negotiations have delivered too little from Peel, and the Council is asking too little of them, people need to know. Peel is probably the most powerful and important company in the NW. We need to ensure that the balance between the interests of their shareholders and the people in the NW is right. Rolling over for Peel will not achieve that. We need a constructive relationship not one that simply gives them all they want. I am pleased that some correspondents, in particular those affected, realise that the Warburton tolling at peak times is a problem that could easily be overcome and compromise is possible. But only offering to stop tolling when the Thelwall Viaduct is CLOSED is nowhere near good enough. Bob Barr[/p][/quote]I think your comments are inflammatory and imprudent Bob. You say you need to ensure that the balance is right but that is all down to the goodwill of Peel holdings. If the council takes an aggressive approach they will reciprocate and it's us that will suffer. PageA
  • Score: -4

12:00am Fri 28 Mar 14

Robert Barr says...

PageA

Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington.

On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were.

Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill.

However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges.

So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel.

Bob Barr
PageA Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington. On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were. Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill. However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges. So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel. Bob Barr Robert Barr
  • Score: 5

11:33am Fri 28 Mar 14

PageA says...

Robert Barr wrote:
PageA

Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington.

On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were.

Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill.

However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges.

So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel.

Bob Barr
That's ok Bob, most people do.

I'm sure you saw this report regarding the importance of the waterways to Warrington's future development...

http://www.warringto
nguardian.co.uk/news
/business_news_legal
/11036618.Waterways_
crucial_to_the_futur
e_in_Warrington/

Your reference to Peel holding 'trump cards' and being pushed around is quite pugilistic in my opinion and I don't think that any degree of gamesmanship or public showboating would be welcome with this opponent..if that's what you consider them to be.

It needs to be a win win with both organisations working together to develop a strategy. Your approach will only push them back into their corner and they will beat you if you want to make this into a fight.

I dont have your experience in Bob but I would be very surprised if Warrington has ever faced a situation like this with a large company.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Barr[/bold] wrote: PageA Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington. On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were. Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill. However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges. So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel. Bob Barr[/p][/quote]That's ok Bob, most people do. I'm sure you saw this report regarding the importance of the waterways to Warrington's future development... http://www.warringto nguardian.co.uk/news /business_news_legal /11036618.Waterways_ crucial_to_the_futur e_in_Warrington/ Your reference to Peel holding 'trump cards' and being pushed around is quite pugilistic in my opinion and I don't think that any degree of gamesmanship or public showboating would be welcome with this opponent..if that's what you consider them to be. It needs to be a win win with both organisations working together to develop a strategy. Your approach will only push them back into their corner and they will beat you if you want to make this into a fight. I dont have your experience in Bob but I would be very surprised if Warrington has ever faced a situation like this with a large company. PageA
  • Score: -3

11:55am Fri 28 Mar 14

Karlar says...

Robert Barr wrote:
PageA

Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington.

On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were.

Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill.

However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges.

So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel.

Bob Barr
I share Page A's view on this situation. A bullying stance may boost your view of things but it serves very little good in the end. By all means make the Council's case robustly but avoid being truculent when doing so. Both adjectives don't necessarily good hand in hand in sensible negotiations, wherein it is always prudent not to force the other side into a corner from which it cannot emerge without loosing face.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Barr[/bold] wrote: PageA Sorry but I disagree. When we controlled the Council I can think of at least four situations where large companies tried to push us around. On each occasion we resisted and got a better or much better result for Warrington. On one of those occasions the company said afterwards, that they had only started with a 'negotiating position' and were surprised not to be pushed back, until they were. Peel hold the trump cards with the Manchester Ship Canal Act. However Warrington cannot prosper if they are allowed to cause gridlock by moving ships during the rush hours. That is why ship movements are being negotiated and that does rely on Peel's goodwill. However if they had serious goodwill they wouldn't extend commuters journeys across the Warburton toll bridge by up to half an hour or more by tolling at peak times and causing traffic jams on the A57 and A6144. If they stopped doing that we could have more faith that they will act responsibly and not jam the rest of the town at rush hours by opening their bridges. So, I repeat, I disagree and I believe that the Council should be taking a more robust position with Peel. Bob Barr[/p][/quote]I share Page A's view on this situation. A bullying stance may boost your view of things but it serves very little good in the end. By all means make the Council's case robustly but avoid being truculent when doing so. Both adjectives don't necessarily good hand in hand in sensible negotiations, wherein it is always prudent not to force the other side into a corner from which it cannot emerge without loosing face. Karlar
  • Score: -2

11:58am Fri 28 Mar 14

Robert Barr says...

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The one thing I can agree is that we need to have a constructive win win for Peel and the people of Warrington. I sincerely believe that that is achievable.

I agree about the importance of the waterways to Warrington. I am very much in favour of increasing tonnage, movements, size of ships and profitability on the Ship Canal. The only thing we are asking for is for those movements to always avoid the rush hours and to avoid the build up to the rush hour whenever possible. That still leaves at least 18 hours a day for profitable movements without costing everyone in Warrington the price of unnecessary congestion and pollution.

The Warburton Toll Bridge, while not important to many in Warrington, is a very important test of whether Peel will take the impact on citizens into account. The offers so far suggest not. Again I am sure a negotiated 'win win' is possible, but how do you negotiate with a company that says we will continue to toll at Warburton 'because we can'.

Bob
I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The one thing I can agree is that we need to have a constructive win win for Peel and the people of Warrington. I sincerely believe that that is achievable. I agree about the importance of the waterways to Warrington. I am very much in favour of increasing tonnage, movements, size of ships and profitability on the Ship Canal. The only thing we are asking for is for those movements to always avoid the rush hours and to avoid the build up to the rush hour whenever possible. That still leaves at least 18 hours a day for profitable movements without costing everyone in Warrington the price of unnecessary congestion and pollution. The Warburton Toll Bridge, while not important to many in Warrington, is a very important test of whether Peel will take the impact on citizens into account. The offers so far suggest not. Again I am sure a negotiated 'win win' is possible, but how do you negotiate with a company that says we will continue to toll at Warburton 'because we can'. Bob Robert Barr
  • Score: 3

12:10pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Robert Barr says...

Hi Karlar

Perhaps my choice of words was as, Page A, says pugilistic, whether that was necessary or not is a matter of opinion.

Bear in mind I said that Peel's behaviour could be seen in that way, a step away from actually saying that is the what the company is.

Unfortunately on many issues both Warrington and other local authorities find that Peel will always do what is best for Peel. Which they are obliged to do as a commercial company. Where that coincides with the wishes of local citizens and the local authority that's fine. When not Peel use all their power to get what they want.

Sadly it is not at all clear that bad publicity, or poor public relations, influence Peel. I still hope that they might change their ways and we can reach constructive compromises in Warrington. However I don't think that giving in to Peel's demands without robust negotiations that identify what give and take is available is the right way to go.

Bob
Hi Karlar Perhaps my choice of words was as, Page A, says pugilistic, whether that was necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Bear in mind I said that Peel's behaviour could be seen in that way, a step away from actually saying that is the what the company is. Unfortunately on many issues both Warrington and other local authorities find that Peel will always do what is best for Peel. Which they are obliged to do as a commercial company. Where that coincides with the wishes of local citizens and the local authority that's fine. When not Peel use all their power to get what they want. Sadly it is not at all clear that bad publicity, or poor public relations, influence Peel. I still hope that they might change their ways and we can reach constructive compromises in Warrington. However I don't think that giving in to Peel's demands without robust negotiations that identify what give and take is available is the right way to go. Bob Robert Barr
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Fri 28 Mar 14

andreask says...

Why can't they introduce some form of 'tag' for regular users like they use on the Mersey tunnel or the M6 toll road? This could be topped up weekly or monthly over the internet. This is one option to speed things up as I'm sure that most vehicles that pass over Warburton bridge during peak times are regular commuters. Just a thought.
Why can't they introduce some form of 'tag' for regular users like they use on the Mersey tunnel or the M6 toll road? This could be topped up weekly or monthly over the internet. This is one option to speed things up as I'm sure that most vehicles that pass over Warburton bridge during peak times are regular commuters. Just a thought. andreask
  • Score: 4

2:21pm Fri 28 Mar 14

PageA says...

Robert Barr wrote:
Hi Karlar

Perhaps my choice of words was as, Page A, says pugilistic, whether that was necessary or not is a matter of opinion.

Bear in mind I said that Peel's behaviour could be seen in that way, a step away from actually saying that is the what the company is.

Unfortunately on many issues both Warrington and other local authorities find that Peel will always do what is best for Peel. Which they are obliged to do as a commercial company. Where that coincides with the wishes of local citizens and the local authority that's fine. When not Peel use all their power to get what they want.

Sadly it is not at all clear that bad publicity, or poor public relations, influence Peel. I still hope that they might change their ways and we can reach constructive compromises in Warrington. However I don't think that giving in to Peel's demands without robust negotiations that identify what give and take is available is the right way to go.

Bob
Bob, I wont keep pressing this point because I appreciate you're a busy man. It isnt a step away, you're trying to make an association between this company and the words that you use. Saying 'could be seen as..' means.. 'they are'.
Here are also some incendiary phrases from this, your most recent comment..
"Peel use all their power to get what they want" - Association with Toddler and tantrum.
Threat of 'bad publicity'
Threat of 'poor public relations'
Reference to them Changing their ways implying that it is them and not the custodians of this town, who have avoided this issue for years, that need to change.
'Giving in to Peels demands' ..What are their demands? To run their business as they see fit? Seems reasonable to me.
Did the development of the waterways come up at meetings when you were in charge Bob?
[quote][p][bold]Robert Barr[/bold] wrote: Hi Karlar Perhaps my choice of words was as, Page A, says pugilistic, whether that was necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Bear in mind I said that Peel's behaviour could be seen in that way, a step away from actually saying that is the what the company is. Unfortunately on many issues both Warrington and other local authorities find that Peel will always do what is best for Peel. Which they are obliged to do as a commercial company. Where that coincides with the wishes of local citizens and the local authority that's fine. When not Peel use all their power to get what they want. Sadly it is not at all clear that bad publicity, or poor public relations, influence Peel. I still hope that they might change their ways and we can reach constructive compromises in Warrington. However I don't think that giving in to Peel's demands without robust negotiations that identify what give and take is available is the right way to go. Bob[/p][/quote]Bob, I wont keep pressing this point because I appreciate you're a busy man. It isnt a step away, you're trying to make an association between this company and the words that you use. Saying 'could be seen as..' means.. 'they are'. Here are also some incendiary phrases from this, your most recent comment.. "Peel use all their power to get what they want" - Association with Toddler and tantrum. Threat of 'bad publicity' Threat of 'poor public relations' Reference to them Changing their ways implying that it is them and not the custodians of this town, who have avoided this issue for years, that need to change. 'Giving in to Peels demands' ..What are their demands? To run their business as they see fit? Seems reasonable to me. Did the development of the waterways come up at meetings when you were in charge Bob? PageA
  • Score: -2

7:39pm Fri 28 Mar 14

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
StopTheToll wrote:
Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys.
Why, you ask. The 12p pays for the maintenance of the bridge.
Wasn't there an issue not so long ago with a bridge that no one bothered to maintain?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StopTheToll[/bold] wrote: Why does a company like Peel Holdings feel the need to take a 12p toll anyway to them it must be such an insignificant amount. Even when the motorway network is running smoothly it just adds to the already congestion on our road network. I work in Altrincham just off Atlantic Street this adds anything from 10 to 40minutes onto my journey in the mornings and the return trip home a travel time that should only take 35 minutes in total. In the mornings this can be particularly bad when a certain person is collecting the toll she seems unprepared to hand back change or the ticket for repeat journeys.[/p][/quote]Why, you ask. The 12p pays for the maintenance of the bridge.[/p][/quote]Wasn't there an issue not so long ago with a bridge that no one bothered to maintain? PageA
  • Score: -2

10:08am Sat 29 Mar 14

Freeborn John says...

The whole thing needs a good shake up, paying twelve-pence to cross someones silly canal bridge is so last century...do horse drawn carts go free I wonder?
The junction off the A57 needs a coat of looking at too, one vehicle waiting to turn right and everybody else is stopped dead behind them, I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to widen the road for a passing place at that point, it would involve the purchase of a strip of land no bigger than a window box!
The whole thing needs a good shake up, paying twelve-pence to cross someones silly canal bridge is so last century...do horse drawn carts go free I wonder? The junction off the A57 needs a coat of looking at too, one vehicle waiting to turn right and everybody else is stopped dead behind them, I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to widen the road for a passing place at that point, it would involve the purchase of a strip of land no bigger than a window box! Freeborn John
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree