New action to combat traffic congestion in Colne

New action to combat traffic congestion in Colne

New action to combat traffic congestion in Colne

First published in News

THE next stages to tackle traffic congestion in Colne have been outlined by Lancashire County Council chiefs after public concern over their plans to bypass the town and Foulridge with a £38million link road.

The authority’s transport boss John Fillis promised action to cut jams on the Vivary Way/North Valley Road corridor would be taken and assessed before any final decision on the controversial new highway.

He spoke following a visit to the affected area after he last week added an alternative of no bypass to the six routes originally proposed.

The move came after a public consultation on the draft East Lancashire Transport Masterplan failed to give clear backing to any of the options.

It showed widespread opposition to its preferred ‘Brown route’.

The new consideration has been welcomed by Earby Tory councillor Chris Tennant, who said it should look at extending any bypass beyond his village to avoid ‘just moving the problem’.

Coun Fillis revealed a new three-stage strategy for the Vivary Way/North Valley Road corridor in Colne.

It includes: l Delivering a works programme including junction improvements, modernising pedestrian facilities and making sure street furniture and signs are effective; l Closely examining the effects new development will have on traffic volumes and movements along North Valley Road; l Updating the county council’s information on volumes and destinations of traffic using North Valley Road, through traffic counts and road side interviews.

Coun Fillis said: “The consultation told us that people want us to carry out more detailed appraisals of the options for a bypass.

"We need to improve the transport network around Colne and our view is that a bypass is likely to be the best long-term solution.

“In the short-term, however, there is serious congestion in the area and we will carry out a range of work during this financial year to try to improve that congestion now.

“At the same time we will gather information to help us confirm whether a bypass is the best option and, if so, to build a business case for investment.”

Coun Tennant said: “This careful consideration is the best way forward.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Kevin, Colne says...

At peak times, and often for most of the working day and sometimes at weekends, the North Valley Spine is highly congested and occasionally grid-locked.

I gather from this article that the four-point action plan is

A works programme including junction improvements;

Modernising pedestrian facilities and making sure street furniture and signs are effective;

Closely examining the effects new development will have on traffic volumes and movements along North Valley Road;

Updating the county council’s information on volumes and destinations of traffic using North Valley Road, through traffic counts and road side interviews.

I’m sorry, but I think that this is wholly and utterly inadequate. It’s verging on the laughable.

Junction improvements will not deliver much, if anything, in the way of additional capacity.

Most pedestrian facilities on the North Valley are fairly modern, and quite how attending to traffic signage and counting cars, buses and trucks will alleviate congestion is lost on me.

The impact of new developments should already be examined closely, so I’m not sure how this can assist unless the county starts objecting to proposed housing developments in and around the northern and eastern side of the town.

The policy tools available to the County are very, very limited. They have no lever to moderate traffic demand and therefore they must address road supply.

Extending the M65, building the Villages by-pass and re-opening the Colne to Skipton link, however well justified, are decades away.

The County should, in my view, investigate as a matter of urgency the possibility of co-ordinating the pelican crossings with the phasing of the light controlled junctions. In addition they should investigate the feasibility of providing additional traffic lanes – it may be possible to squeeze these in, but it won’t be easy.
At peak times, and often for most of the working day and sometimes at weekends, the North Valley Spine is highly congested and occasionally grid-locked. I gather from this article that the four-point action plan is A works programme including junction improvements; Modernising pedestrian facilities and making sure street furniture and signs are effective; Closely examining the effects new development will have on traffic volumes and movements along North Valley Road; Updating the county council’s information on volumes and destinations of traffic using North Valley Road, through traffic counts and road side interviews. I’m sorry, but I think that this is wholly and utterly inadequate. It’s verging on the laughable. Junction improvements will not deliver much, if anything, in the way of additional capacity. Most pedestrian facilities on the North Valley are fairly modern, and quite how attending to traffic signage and counting cars, buses and trucks will alleviate congestion is lost on me. The impact of new developments should already be examined closely, so I’m not sure how this can assist unless the county starts objecting to proposed housing developments in and around the northern and eastern side of the town. The policy tools available to the County are very, very limited. They have no lever to moderate traffic demand and therefore they must address road supply. Extending the M65, building the Villages by-pass and re-opening the Colne to Skipton link, however well justified, are decades away. The County should, in my view, investigate as a matter of urgency the possibility of co-ordinating the pelican crossings with the phasing of the light controlled junctions. In addition they should investigate the feasibility of providing additional traffic lanes – it may be possible to squeeze these in, but it won’t be easy. Kevin, Colne
  • Score: 20

4:14pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Izanears says...

Spot on Kevin as usual.
I use that route a great deal and what always puzzles me is how all those vehicles that were crawling along nose to tail literally from the end of the M65, all disappear when you have got passed Langroyd Road. I know from my journeys that they don't all go up Langroyd , so where have they gone? And another thing, why aren't the planners looking at South valley?
Spot on Kevin as usual. I use that route a great deal and what always puzzles me is how all those vehicles that were crawling along nose to tail literally from the end of the M65, all disappear when you have got passed Langroyd Road. I know from my journeys that they don't all go up Langroyd , so where have they gone? And another thing, why aren't the planners looking at South valley? Izanears
  • Score: 8

5:00pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Cllr James Keith Starkie says...

I may be wrong but isn't the onward split of traffic going beyond Colne, roughly 2/3 for the A56, 1/3 for the A6068?
I may be wrong but isn't the onward split of traffic going beyond Colne, roughly 2/3 for the A56, 1/3 for the A6068? Cllr James Keith Starkie
  • Score: -1

5:46pm Thu 6 Feb 14

vicn1956 says...

Didn't Nero fiddle while Rome burned?
Didn't Nero fiddle while Rome burned? vicn1956
  • Score: 1

8:55pm Thu 6 Feb 14

It's a spade! says...

Cllr James Keith Starkie wrote:
I may be wrong but isn't the onward split of traffic going beyond Colne, roughly 2/3 for the A56, 1/3 for the A6068?
You are being deliberately misleading The Jacobs traffic study shows that only 30% of the total traffic goes on to the A56. 50% of the traffic is not "through" traffic at all so how will a bypass help?

So, spend Millions and 70% of the traffic will still be there by which time you will have approved a "garden centre" for Boundary Mill and another retail outlet for Lidl. That are already on the cards let alone anything that may come along.

All the while you will have spoilt a beautiful area with no benefit. you also fail to mention that to make this viable there will have to be "employment areas" at each end. Even more green belt being taken. You will trot out the old line of attracting employment. If there is such a demand for new land why can't Peels fill the site they have in Barrowford and have applied to turn into housing? Why has Lomeshaye extension been approved ONCE the current site is filled. There is no demand for this extra land.

How about another route that leaves the M65 at Brierfield and heads up through Roughlee past Barley and join the A59 towards Gisburn? Too close to home James?

You also fail to make it clear that all of the proposed routes will take away some of the existing railway track bed. If this happens then it will never be re-opened no matter what you might say. The cost of adding bridges would be astronomical and prohibitive.

If the traffic congestion is so bad due to all that that goes through to Foulridge, then how come there are never any traffic problems there or in Kelbrook or in Earby?

Have people really understood how big a flyover will have to be (because of the ground levels) at Foulridge and the potential impact on a fantastic piece of history and Victorian engineering (the Mile Tunnel).

Why has the council year after year approved various developments on North Valley which has consistently added to the traffic yet in granting permission has stated that the existing traffic infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed developments and now is saying that it isn't, which is it? If it isn't then the two proposed developments should be refused out of hand, surely?

Have any of the people who really think this is gridlock ever driven outside of Pendle? I regularly drive all over this country and abroad and a five minute delay is hardly gridlock. This morning I spent half an hour to get from the junction on the M60 to Old Trafford Cricket Ground. That's life you just live with it. I don't feel that the cost of this project is in any way worth it, and of course the cost won't be the cost but will end up being substantially more, they always are.

LCC has tried and failed to convince North Yorkshire to "link" to this road. they have stated categorically that they have no inclination to do so. will not commit any funds as they see no point to it whatsoever. The A59 is not the road to be linking to the most direct and quickest route would be into the Aire Valley and the modern road that exists there.

Here's an idea. Write to every person in Pendle and ask whether or not they support this road. With the proviso that if, once built, this has no effect on "congestion" then the cost of building it will be added back to their council tax for the next 20 years. See how keen people really are!
[quote][p][bold]Cllr James Keith Starkie[/bold] wrote: I may be wrong but isn't the onward split of traffic going beyond Colne, roughly 2/3 for the A56, 1/3 for the A6068?[/p][/quote]You are being deliberately misleading The Jacobs traffic study shows that only 30% of the total traffic goes on to the A56. 50% of the traffic is not "through" traffic at all so how will a bypass help? So, spend Millions and 70% of the traffic will still be there by which time you will have approved a "garden centre" for Boundary Mill and another retail outlet for Lidl. That are already on the cards let alone anything that may come along. All the while you will have spoilt a beautiful area with no benefit. you also fail to mention that to make this viable there will have to be "employment areas" at each end. Even more green belt being taken. You will trot out the old line of attracting employment. If there is such a demand for new land why can't Peels fill the site they have in Barrowford and have applied to turn into housing? Why has Lomeshaye extension been approved ONCE the current site is filled. There is no demand for this extra land. How about another route that leaves the M65 at Brierfield and heads up through Roughlee past Barley and join the A59 towards Gisburn? Too close to home James? You also fail to make it clear that all of the proposed routes will take away some of the existing railway track bed. If this happens then it will never be re-opened no matter what you might say. The cost of adding bridges would be astronomical and prohibitive. If the traffic congestion is so bad due to all that that goes through to Foulridge, then how come there are never any traffic problems there or in Kelbrook or in Earby? Have people really understood how big a flyover will have to be (because of the ground levels) at Foulridge and the potential impact on a fantastic piece of history and Victorian engineering (the Mile Tunnel). Why has the council year after year approved various developments on North Valley which has consistently added to the traffic yet in granting permission has stated that the existing traffic infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed developments and now is saying that it isn't, which is it? If it isn't then the two proposed developments should be refused out of hand, surely? Have any of the people who really think this is gridlock ever driven outside of Pendle? I regularly drive all over this country and abroad and a five minute delay is hardly gridlock. This morning I spent half an hour to get from the junction on the M60 to Old Trafford Cricket Ground. That's life you just live with it. I don't feel that the cost of this project is in any way worth it, and of course the cost won't be the cost but will end up being substantially more, they always are. LCC has tried and failed to convince North Yorkshire to "link" to this road. they have stated categorically that they have no inclination to do so. will not commit any funds as they see no point to it whatsoever. The A59 is not the road to be linking to the most direct and quickest route would be into the Aire Valley and the modern road that exists there. Here's an idea. Write to every person in Pendle and ask whether or not they support this road. With the proviso that if, once built, this has no effect on "congestion" then the cost of building it will be added back to their council tax for the next 20 years. See how keen people really are! It's a spade!
  • Score: 7

1:16pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Cllr James Keith Starkie says...

Wow, It's a S. That's some response as I was only attempting to add a bit of info; not have a major political debate, we can let others do that to further their political careers. Perhaps Mr Spade that's you anyway??
*There's nothing misleading about my 2/3 v 1/3 comment - you failed to pick up on the word 'onward'.
*Pendle's input into the LCC Masterplan was the long term desire to support both a bypass and preserve the track bed.
*Colne is one of Lancashire's (not GM's) traffic hotspots. Building the bypass will help the economy and be particularly useful to West Craven, whilst at the same time ease Colne's problems.
*In my view, a single carriageway from Barrowford locks to Foulridge is not the end of the world. I grew up watching the HIgham bypass being constructed and look how important that road is.
*Mr Spade, please continue this debate but send me a private email first so that I know who I'm talking to.
Wow, It's a S. That's some response as I was only attempting to add a bit of info; not have a major political debate, we can let others do that to further their political careers. Perhaps Mr Spade that's you anyway?? *There's nothing misleading about my 2/3 v 1/3 comment - you failed to pick up on the word 'onward'. *Pendle's input into the LCC Masterplan was the long term desire to support both a bypass and preserve the track bed. *Colne is one of Lancashire's (not GM's) traffic hotspots. Building the bypass will help the economy and be particularly useful to West Craven, whilst at the same time ease Colne's problems. *In my view, a single carriageway from Barrowford locks to Foulridge is not the end of the world. I grew up watching the HIgham bypass being constructed and look how important that road is. *Mr Spade, please continue this debate but send me a private email first so that I know who I'm talking to. Cllr James Keith Starkie
  • Score: 1

11:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

beeelaine says...

If you are concerned, like I am about how awful the traffic is in Colne, please ensure you voice your opinion to the Planning Department when an application for 270 houses is made for a new housing development on The Rough in Colne - it should be going to Planning some time soon. Think how many extra cars that will bring to our local bottle-neck jams.
If you are concerned, like I am about how awful the traffic is in Colne, please ensure you voice your opinion to the Planning Department when an application for 270 houses is made for a new housing development on The Rough in Colne - it should be going to Planning some time soon. Think how many extra cars that will bring to our local bottle-neck jams. beeelaine
  • Score: 0

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