Resident comments feedback
These pages list the comments given at the first Upper Orwell Crossings public consultation event. Some simple answers such as "No" has been construed by us to mean no to the proposals rather than N/A - but is down to your own interpretations.
Only in Suffolk would you decide to reduce congestion near the town centre and on the by-pass by directing more traffic through residential streets. According to your ill-thought out plans, virtually all cross town traffic from the Mildenhall, Stoke Park, Thorington park and Probably much of pinewood would travel through Luther Road & Station St to the new bridge. As both street already have traffic calming measures which have little effect. (apart from turning Croft St into a rat run) I cannot see what other measures you take in that area. Its also the main pedestrian route for school children to Hillside and Stoke High and also has a children's playground along side it. The Travel Ipswich Scheme was supposed to relieve congestion in the town centre but has been an object failure and I suspect this scheme in its project form will meet the same fate and it will move the congestion to residential streets instead of largely non residential ones.
These crossings will not address the congestion of the town so what is the benefit to town residents? Questions from Ipswich Green Party Meeting 29/07/2016 Where are the actual Plans/ Which roads are the crossings connecting to/from? The map isn't accurate enough to show outcomes for residents What is meant by East and West because the crossings are not, they are more specific, are they not (Q13/14) What would Option C offer on the Island and when did the Island become private? ( Older residents remember when there was a tree lined Promenade) With so much of the waterfront unoccupied, who is going to want the Island. Why do you think it will attract investment? What about existing businesses e.g FairLine - will they have to move? What about safety of pedestrians and cyclist with heavy traffic also using the crossing? With busier roads in a small area how will it improve traffic congestion? Where is the money to create a by-pass to the north which would take traffic out of the town and be more effective in reducing traffic congestion? Where is the money to improve Landseer/Holywells Road for residents, cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles? And what will happen to the Wherstead Road; will that be improved to take more traffic? The survey has opened up more questions than answeres.
Crossings a good idea but not if other roads are closed.
The crossings are a good idea as long as they are going to provide additional routes across town and not be used to close other roads i.e Salthouse St & College St etc.
Please could you instal a traffic light at the junction of Landseer Road and Sandyhill Lane. That is if the crossings go ahead.
I was unaware that three bridges had been proposed.
We are also hearing of the regeneration of the Tolly Cobbold Brewery - Great- also shops offices & 222 Flats so how can that help an alreay overloaded and dangerous road network.
Should be near the school and Cliff Lane, Obviously this survey doesn't attempt to recognise the views already put forward at various meetings in connection with Holywells Park. Mainly congestion and lack of parking.
I think the road bridge needs to be situated further up Landseer Road. through Holbrook Road and testing station. While if the pedestrian crossing outside UCS was removed traffic would flow better
That the project is well managed and kept on course to earliest completion date. The project is prepared incorporating the principles of the Disability Act and need and access for Disables users is included and monitored.
Access onto the bridge needs to be free flowing otherwise traffic will BACK UP along Wherstead Road, and pollution will go up! It concerns me how the bridge will lift to allow ships through very disruptive to traffic flow.
Increased traffic on Cliff Lane and Station Street, will have a negative impact on bus routes 6 & 15, making buses less attractive to use and more expensive to operate. The Junction between Luther Road Belstead Road is not suitable for increased traffic volume. Additional pedestrian crossings needed on Wherstead Road. Attenuation measures needed to prevent congestion in sensitive areas F.L. Vernon St and in roads used by public transport, support objectives 1,2,3 & 5 but not objective 4.
YES! As a yacht owner in Ipswich Haven Marina with a 20 Metre high Mast, I fear we will have to more out and birth somewhere else as we will be severely restricted with access. Is the bridge going to open at high water? Have you spent time in the lock to observe how long it takes to keep boat movements going?
The present map would suggest that traffic would (cross town) be filtered along Landseer Road, thereby concentrating traffic presently also using Bishops Hill, Nacton and Felixstowe Road along one route which is already heavily used especially by HGV'S
We are very concerned that as business owners, who will be severely affected, we have not been notified nor consulted that this is happening. Will we lose our business
Crossing A should give priority to river traffic, not vehicles using bridge. Crossing B should be designed so that it can be raised to allow vessels access to St Peters Dock. Crossing B should not be built without Crossing C for cyclists and pedestrians.
My concerns are restricted to the wider effects of the crossings. Measures to ensure air quality doesn't deteriorate. Measures to reduce traffic noise, more traffic means more cyclists using the pavement/ cycle lanes gives license to cyclists to use all pavements, increasing their sense of security at the expense of pedestrians, but I am at a loss to suggest an alternative and resigned to having to think of the pavements as open to light traffic and avoiding accordingly.
Speed bumps down Nacton Rd's slip road. Junction changes - Maryon Rd/;Nacton Rd. Lights and congestion cause frequent problems and use of slip road as high speed alternative. Parking on the wide paths is a problem for peds and cyclists. My concerns are restricted to the wider effects of the crossings. - can measures be taken to ensure that air quality doesn't deteriorate? Is it monitored even? - More traffic more noise - measures to reduce? - More traffic means more cyclists using the pavement. Cycling lanes give licence to cyclists to use all pavements, increasing their sense of s***? at the expense of pedestrians. But I'm at a loss to suggest an alternative and resigned to having to think of the pavement as open to light traffic and acting accordingly.
Crossing A should give priority to river traffic, note vehicles using bridge. Crossing B should be designed so that it can be raised to allow vessels access to St Peter's Dock. Crossing B should not be built without crossing C for cyclists and pedestrians.
We are VERY concerned that as business owners, who will be severely affected, we have not been notified nor consulted that this is happening. Well we loose our business? Q6 access to our business
Regeneration will create more congestion and traffic concentration Traffic will be redirected rather than solve congestion None of the options for traffic management will address traffic volume, pollution or noise. The present map would suggest that traffic would (cross town) be filtered along Landseer Rd, thereby concentrating traffic presently also using Bishops Hill, Nacton and Felixstowe Rd along one route, already heavily used especially by HGVs.
Yes! As a yacht owner in Ipsw9ch Haven Marina with a 20m high mast, I fear we will have to move out and birth somewhere else as we will be severely restricted with access. Is the bridge going to be open at high water? Have you spent time in the lock to observe how long it all takes to keep boat movements going?
Yes. If the crossing at Point B is as shown just above river level it will effectively completely close access by river above the bridge. That will destroy any attractions along the waterfront and lose any events that might attract tourism to the area.
The proposal is expected to increase traffic along Whestead Road but at the same time encourage more cyclists to cross the river and use the roads in this area. As a regular cycle commuter along Wherstead Road it is already very dangerous and difficult to cross, there are no pedestrian/cycle crossings south of the West Bank railway branch bridge despite National Cycle Route 1 running through Bourne park and the Strand being the preferred cycle route out to the Shotley peninsula. I would ask that one or more toucan crossings be considered for further out along Wherstead Road to help improve safety for both cyclists and pedestrians. I have a near miss about once a fortnight while trying to cross the road and access Bourne Park on my way home to Capel St Mary.
I think the crossing will be of benefit to the area, but my only concern is the school on cliff lane, as cliff lane is the main road from Nacton Road to the crossing. I think there needs to be a reduced speed limit and traffic calming by the school. Also more restricted parking as the road gets very congested.
Waste of money linked to the posh part of Ipswich, where all the money is going the waterfront. What about other areas of Ipswich. Forgot this is SCC idea who don't care about Ipswich. Why can't you just build northern bypass, sorry that goes through too many Tory voters land again the only people SCC care about.
This hair brained scheme may satisfy objective 1 but the sole beneficiary will be ABP who own the land. The scheme fails to satisfy option 2 and the preferred option will kill the waterfront. Fixed mast yachts currently have unrestricted access to the marinas in the wet dock. Your web site states: The opening section of the bridge would only need to open for the taller vessels, and these could be grouped together and sent through in a platoon. The bridge opening could be constrained to outside of peak periods and to be relatively infrequent. This is both impractical and totally unacceptable. Fixed mast yachts and larger motor boats will re-locate and I will be amongst the first. Money will not therefore be spent in local restaurants and shops. Your proposal also completely fails in respect of objective 4. The Orwell bridge was built to relieve the centre of Ipswich by keeping cars and HGVs on the A14. It seems you now wish to divert them into the centre if the town to relieve the bridge. Complete madness.
Can't see why you need to waste money on 3 separate crossing when the one at A would do the job. But as the was no one to talk to about it still unsure. SCC has already wasted 21 million on Transport Unfit for Ipswich just giving Ipswich more unworking traffic lights. Look at how many time Handford Rd Portman Rd Junction has been closed or dug in last 4 years. The Councillors decided who do not has Ipswich interest at heart all were from towns like Felixstowe & Bury St Edmunds which have benefited. SCC does not care about Ipswich or it problems.
Cycling should be considered throughout this development. Lowering of congestion can be achieved by encouraging more cycling and less driving in and around Ipswich. The current provision for safe cycling for anyone other than a thrill speaking professional cyclist is practically non-existent in Ipswich so any new development must consider provisions for fast transport utilising non-congestion and pollution causing transport methods such as cycling and walking. For the record I do own a car but wouldn't mind my journey by car being slightly more difficult if the rest of my days in Ipswich were safe and pleasant without dangerous roads to walk and cycle next to. Thank you.
Increase in access could result in an increase in traffic incidents and crime in the location.
The concern is that a crossing over the new cut would would have little impact on through traffic. A swing bridge upgrade would reduce the efficency of the lock and a crossing outside the log would have to be a lifting bridge or a large amount of trade would be lost in the dock. Also my concern is for the Ipswich sea cadets who could be heavily negatively impacted by the proposals
Don't do it.... SCC can not be trusted woth such decisions.
The river is designated as the River Orwell County Wildlife Site (CWS), the designation reflects the river's ornithological interest. It is also known to support other Protected and UK and Suffolk Priority species, as well as forming a buffer to the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA); the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar site and the River Orwell Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is therefore essential that all potential ecological impacts likely to result from these proposals are fully assessed; mitigated and compensated. The scheme should also secure ecological enhancements in accordance with national planning policy.
Cycle crossing of the Price Phillip Lock should not be subjected to regular closing (due to lock gate openings) otherwise this route will not be well used. Cycling facilities on either of the other crossings should be separated from vehicles and on both sides of the road so that cyclists do not have to cross back and forth across the road. Any cycle scheme should be a continuous flowing scheme to make it most attractive and fully encourage people to change to this mode of transport.
The suggested bridges should be designed so that they do not make it more difficult to access the wet docks, currently via a lock system. This is difficult enough! Bridges need to be high enough to accommodate yachts with masts (say 30m clearance). To have to wait for bridges to open, then to wait for locks to open, will discourage boat owners, who generate a lot of the town's business.
It would appear that Plan B would prevent access to all types of boating - this could be to the detriment of the area to tourism
Waste of time and money. Ipswich is a nightmare for driving this will make it far worse. Spend the money on a northern bypass which will be much more efficient at reducing conjestion. All of your questions are geared to give some kind of response in favour to what you want to do. The questions are biased and unfair. Increasing parking charges will only make people look elsewhere to shop as charges are already too high. What's the point in spending more money on the dock when you can't even afford to remove the monstrosity of the empty unfinished tower block that can be seen for miles around. You have all of the wrong priorities. It's like "what can we waste money on next"
View the full public consultation response for #4905285105 (55-64 Prefer not to say Ipswich resident)
This is the biggest potential investment in the transport network in Ipswich for decades. It is not clear to me that all of the implications of the investment on the whole network have been thought through. I am pleased to support the actual investment proposed, but what if further investment is needed on the rest of the network in order to maximise the benefits achieved. The network has evolved in response to the fundamental constraint of the current locations of the Orwell Crossings, and that will change and so there will be knock-on needs. In particular, the area to the north of the Wet Dock (a) can the idea of having the Star Lane route become 2-way, freeing up the southern Key Street route for access only purposes be progressed, and (b) can the idea of connecting Star Lane/Grimwade St with Fore Hamlet (cutting under back Hamlet) also be progressed? The former would promote regeneration, the latter would ease traffic movement. Also, whilst we can deduce where the Crossing A would connect to on the West Bank, the route on the East Bank is not at all clear, and yet this will all need to be costed and planned in such a way as to bring maximum benefits.
My main concern about the proposal is not the crossing itself, but the impact it will have on the surrounding residential area. The proposed routes have park entrances, schools and shops all used by parents and children. Without any clear plans for mitigating the dangers that the proposed routes would bring to these people I would strongly object and campaign against these plans.
The cost of the project and what the actual benefits are.
Unlikely to affect me in a negative way - so let's crack on with the project if it's really this good!
Make a Northern Bypass
There ideally would be a means of turning right out of Burrell Road - rather than having to turn left and go around a roundabout.Or an alternative route from Ranelagh Road.
I feel the most important issue is to reduce the traffic build up along star lane and by the novertell.moor access to the a 14 is needed
I am unsure why three crossings are involved. This would seem to add significant cost compared with two road crossings (new cut plus Prince Philip lock), and the crossing south of the lock would appear to give much more of a problem for marina access, which is very important for the town.
Option A looks the best option as the only one of the three that would appear to offer a benefit congestion reduction. Option B and C would not help ease traffic.
Download the Upper Orwell Crossing Consultation Document