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.
View the full public consultation response for #4901127926 (Prefer not to say Female Ipswich resident)
The night time ban for HGVs would need to be enforced, this is not currently happening as things stand in Ipswich at the moment. So real agreements around resources to enforce the ban would have to be made. Overall I think that not enough thought has been given to shifting the congestion problem from one residential areas of Ipswich to another and this is not acceptable. There has to be incentives/disincentives to car drivers to stay our of the town centre such as a congestion charge at certain times of the day.
Already a build up of traffic on A14/A137 junction and roundabout by Oyster Reach
Very exciting proposals.Please get on with it quickly so we can benefit.
Why build a crossing so near the town as main concern is getting too the crossing when going from one side of town to the other as will take me longer would prefer a bypass north of town from martlesham to white house rather than more money wasted on bridges which may look nice but offer no benefit
Think this will be an excellent opportunity and will help reduce congestion on 1 way system. Only concern is if increase traffic on cliff lane where the school is i think a zebra crossing as well as reduced speed to 20 will need to be introduced as could be very dangerous for pupils and residents
HGV traffic should be directed along Landseer Rd and not be allowed to use Cliff Lane.
Use roundabouts and clear road markings to indicate lane usage and keep clear areas - unlike current situation on Novotel roundabout. No more traffic lights please!
Cliff Lane has already had at least 2 children knocked down outside the school. This road is already too busy. Pedestrian crossings should be added. Traffic lights will be needed at the bottom of Cliff Lane where it meets Landseer Road. Maybe a dead end between Cliff Lane School and the shops should be introduced to help with safety issues, maybe buses only allowed through.
As a resident of Nacton Road it desperately needs some kind of help as it is heavily congested almost 7 days a week now I feel this may take some of that away although the money would be better spent on a northern bypass and help the whole town instead of just the business in the centre
Quite clearly there are severe constraints about the location of the road bridge. First, the design of the bridge must ensure long standing [historic] navigation rights for users of the wet dock marina are not impeded. Second, there is very limited access points for the bridge to actually join to roads on the east and west banks. Engineering a solution for access, which will involve elevating roads on both banks is highly problematic. The consultants involved in this project must have given some consideration to these problems, yet no illustrative examples of bridge designs have been incorporated into this consultation, thus rendering it flawed. It seems incredible to allocate £millions of funding to this project but the public are kept entirely in the dark about the physical feasibility of designing a road bridge solution that will work without causing substantial loss to land and property.
I live in a cul-de-sac therefore none of these things will apply directly to me.
Access of boats and yatchs to new cut west and haven marina
With regards to this, with such a lovely atmosphere beginning to arise, traffic filtering through from 6pm onwards would cause a decrease in the appeal of the waterfront, visitors and the safety of families and couples alike.
Needs to be for all traffic not just cycles and pedestrians
It's been too long in coming to relieve pressure elsewhere in the town. A pedestrian link between the northen end of the island to the south bank would also be beneficial
View the full public consultation response for #4895132146 (Prefer not to say Prefer not to say Ipswich resident)
The east to west bank bridge - how will boats get through to the marina? Will it be that tall or will it be a draw bridge or swing bridge that keeps opening and makes traffic wait?
They must have a neat modern design to add to the visual attractiveness of the area. May need to improve traffic flow along Nacton Road as a result of increased flow expected.
Proposal A is the best option
I believe any form of improvement to the Ipswich traffic system on this scale is a welcomed improvement.
It won't reduce the congestion when Orwell bridge is closed, it will become a 'rat race road or crossing' with more accidents waiting to happen making it hazardous. Northern Bypass is the best and only option to overcome these issues. You will have to do it at some point, so why waste money here now! Just do the northern bypass which should have been done 16 years ago when lazy SCC rejected it.!!
Not too many traffic lights to be installed. The amount of traffic lights in Ipswich is ridiculous and causes a lot of the congestion.
Please please design appropriately for cyclists. Make sure they are separated from cars (ideally) or at least have clear marked space on the road and at junctions.
None of those measures address my concerns. Things that would include the planting of trees and plants to improve air quality, and provide the disruption of noise.
Surely HGVs should come at night!!!!
You must seriously reconsider increasing the traffic flows on Cliff Lane. It runs through a large housing estate with access junctions on to Cliff Lane. There are 2 steep hills and parked vehicles along the road. It is a bus route. There is a serious congestion of community services around the area of the shops, the Margaret Catchpole PH, entrance to the Park, and the school. There two old peoples homes on the road, one right next to the park entrance. Not forgetting the allotment site and two bowls clubs. The park is experiencing a huge increase in activities and people attending and trying to find parking. There are junctions entering on to Cliff Lane at either end of the shops. The teachers from the school all park along Cliff Lane during term time. At the bottom end at the junction with Holywells Rd we have the NHS GP practice with a single entrance and exit causing increased traffic problems. The Brewery has an planning application in for 222 dwelling units and other business units which will also have a huge impact on traffic volume in the area. Don't make Cliff Lane a rat-run to the new bridge especially during the rush hour and when children are making their way to school. Of course with that the parents trying to park somewhere. I am in favour of the bridges but not the increased traffic flow along Cliff Lane. Personally I don't believe that it will make any difference to the gyratory system.
Traffic on Star Lane is terrible in rush hour - the new bridge needs to help this!
Provide car parking, toilets and slipways nearby, to attract people to make MUCH greater use of waterfront based leisure and recreational facilities, eg. canoeing / kayaking / dinghy sailing
Increased pollution, congestion, noise and danger in Wherstead Rd. For what? take a look at your Waterside, derelict buildings, empty flats!
From the material available I can't see how the main crossing from east to West Bank will be connected to existing roads. I assume Landseer road on East, but on the West does all traffic then have to cross Stoke Bridge? I think there needs to be improved links to Ranelagh road to get to London Road & Yarmouth Road avoiding Stoke Bridge. I think this is critical to the objective of creating new route options and hence reducing congestion overall. I think failure to connect effectively on the West will simply give drivers and passengers a different view whilst stuck in traffic.
Complete waste of money likely to increase traffic and cause congestion. It would also have a adverse effect on the successful Marina operation if marine access was made more difficult because of bridge constraints. The waterfront and Marina has been a huge plus for Ipswich don't spoil it. It would be more beneficial if the partially completed development of the waterfront could be finally completed.
I live opposite the school on Cliff Lane. We have already had two accidents in the few lives we have lived here. Although I welcome the new orwell crossings I have real concerns about the likely increase in cut through traffic down Cliff Lane and the impact on the school users and local home owners. Access only up Cliff Lane with periods were the road is closed during school start and finish times need to be considered.
Key concern is the collateral impact of residential roads being affected by these crossings. Reducing traffic elsewhere and increasing traffic in other areas less suitable for any significant traffic increases. Given the perceived success of other traffic 'improvement' initiatives in Ipswich this new project does not engender a feeling of optimism.
Whichever solution is chosen it should be much higher to prevent restriction on access by yachts. After all if the bridge is to open this will restrict vehicle traffic and cause congestion when open foe boats, and when closed it will prevent boats entering and leaving the Wet Dock.
I will move my boat from Ipswich marina as I will no longer have 24 hour access. Most boats with masts will go. you will be left with motor boats. Air draft must be high to allow for tides. You say nothing here about the marina, which will become noisy and no longer attractive. ABP will lose thousands of pounds.
Whilst I can understand that the Stoke Bridge area will experience less congestion, it seems to me that more congestion will result in Nacton Road - which is already congested - particularly near the Ravenswood roundabout. This doesn't solve the problem it just shifts it.
Residents parking eg Wherstead Rd should be improved ie as near as possible, free & secure.
Crossing A should be designed and operated in such a manner that the interaction between lock & bridge should be so co-ordinated that vessels are given the priority NOT the vehicles crossing from one side to the other. Historic vessels (Barges, Schooners & other Tall Ships) that use the port and give to the waterfront its historic character rely on the ability to enter & leave the port when it suits their customers. This means that these vessels should be able to pass through the bridge when they need to, rather than be forced to only pass through at off peak times. This is perfectly feasible as can be seen by numerous examples in, for example, the Netherlands. I believe that if they were not able come and go when it suits them, Ipswich would lose this valuable heritage/tourism asset, as their businesses would no longer be viable. Visiting historic ships would also be affected and are likely to stay away, losing tourist income to the town. If Crossing B was fixed it would preclude any future development of St Peters Dock, by Stoke Bridge, as some form of Museum Harbour or such. Thinking of future potential opportunities, the crossing B should be such that it could from time to time be opened/raised to allow vessels access to the St Peters Dock area. It is essential that, if crossing B goes ahead, the Crossing C is created, to complete a safe and quick crossing from one side of the Town to the other for cyclists and pedestrians.
The money would be spent on a northern bypass to get through traffic out of town centre
very concerned about the limitations on navigation a new bridge will have. The wet dock allows visiting boats into the heat of Ipswich having a benefit to the water front and contributing to the local economy. Some craft have masts 30 metres high so unless any bridge is going to be higher than masts there will be restrictions to navigation. I would strongly suggest the planning committee visit Ipswich lock to see the impact a bridge would have. Do any of you understand 'free flow' for instance, where traffic would need to be stopped for 45 minutes or so if navigation were not to be restricted. Ipswich waterfront was developed for trading ships to the city, this has largely been replaced by leisure boats but without these the water front would lose its identity. The lock us already a restriction to navigation but a necessity for transiting, an imposed restriction would see many fewer visiting boats and Berth holders moving to less restricted marinas, reducing vibrancy of the area and huge loss of revenue. If SCC wants to improve the waterfront the money would be better spend on developing the derelict buildings whichbarecan eyesore and blight to the area.
A appears to be the most sensible suggestion
No mention of river traffic and access
Access for seagoing vessels at all times. The tide does not run to a regular timetable! Traffic "rat runs"
Please do not impede the waterways. I travel the river and have a height of 17 metres
The marinas attract people with high disposable income and generate revenue for marine related services - this must not be negatively impacted
Why is there no questions regarding river use.
A further need for a Northern bypass
I feel that a Northern by-pass for Ipswich would deliver more benefits. I am unsure about the economic benefits that are claimed for the wet dock crossing and there is no point making the bridge cyclist friendly if the surrounding roads are not.
Download the Upper Orwell Crossing Consultation Document