Paget Road crossing/Transport and Works Acts Orders

Hanging from the railings opposite Maison Molly is some information from Network Rail (?).  When I looked at it I did wonder if it might be another April Fools joke as it seems to give warning that  in the course of implementing the removal of the Paget Road crossing  it may be necessary to close Phillip Road, the High St, Station Road, Valley Road, Queens Road and Paget Road.  It also included a list of various library opening times - maybe documents are on display there but the notice does not explain this.

The following site may give some information
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/anglia-level-crossings/
but using it looks daunting.

It would seem that Network has to apply for Transport and Works Acts Orders and we can comment on these, if we discover what it is all about until May 12th.







«13

Comments

  • Peter Kay is up to date with what's going on and is in touch with WTC, Wiivenhoe society, Borough  and county councillors, with the view to responding collectively. I wont try and explain it here as I don't quite understand it all myself yet. But you can rest assured we are on it.
    Andrea  
  • But Wivenhoe Park crossing is to close by the looks of it.
  • Sads79 said:
    It does now look like they are going to build a footbridge...presumably at Paget Road crossing?

    http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/15206055.Six_level_crossings_to_be_downgraded_in_Colchester___with_new_footbridge_on_the_way/?ref=mr&lp=5

    E41 Paget
    Wivenhoe Parish  Grid Reference: 604058, 221615 Proposal Category: 4
     
    Existing Context Paget level crossing is traversed by a permissive footpath for pedestrian use. The crossing is located in a urban location, in the southern part of the Wivenhoe conurbation. There are residential properties immediately north and south of the level crossing. Proposed Work
    Existing route over the level crossing will be extinguished. 
    On the south side of the railway, users of the level crossing will be diverted along Paget Road mainly using the carriageway, and then along Anglesea Road (a privately maintained public road) using the carriageway heading north, before crossing the railway via an existing road bridge. Users will continue north along Anglesea Road to connect to Queens Road. Footways are available on Queens Road although a handrail will be provided due to the steepness of the gradient and a paved area will be reprofiled to a provide a flatter rest area with a bench. The current level crossing access on the south side of the railway will be removed. On the north side of the railway a new 1.5m wide stoned surface footpath link within Network Rail land will be created west from the level crossing to link to Phillip Road. This new footpath in Network Rail land would require a wooden footbridge less than 5m long to cross an existing watercourse and the footpath will be fenced off with 2.0m high steel palisade fencing. Users can the continue west along to High Street to use the existing road bridge to cross the railway. Widening of some of the existing footway on High Street over road bridge is proposed.  Level crossing infrastructure would be removed and 2.0m high steel palisade fencing installed to the north, and 1.8m high chain link fencing installed to the south of the level crossing, to prevent trespass onto the railway. New wayfinding signage would be provided.


    THE NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER
  • Gazette article very misleading (am writing to them).

    The footbridge is over the brook next to Paget Rd crossing as part of the proposed new path between Paget Rd North and the new surgery. [Which would be useful for other purposes but is no way as substitute for the people using the crossing!).

    It has never been intended to close the University (Boundary Rd alias Wivenhoe Pk)  crossing, although they rather gave the impression at the start that it was! It is only intended to abolish the private vehicular rights. This is reconfirmed by the new stuff.


  • Sads79 said:
    But Wivenhoe Park crossing is to close by the looks of it.

    E57 Wivenhoe
    Wivenhoe Parish Grid Reference: 602538, 223352
     
    Proposal Category: 6
     
    Existing Context The level crossing lies on footpath EX/127/236 an there are both public footpath rights and private vehicle rights to use the level crossing. The land immediately surrounding the crossing is predominantly agricultural, however the wider area is well developed. The University of Essex has significant buildings to the east and north of the level crossing, the nearest area being approximately 300m to the northeast. Footpath EX/127/130 runs parallel to the railway, approximately 60m to the west along the top of an existing flood bund and is a permissive cycle route. 
      
    Private vehicular rights of way will be extinguished and existing public rights will remain for users of footpath EX/127/236.The footpath level crossing will be retained with cycle friendly gates provided. Private vehicles, which are occasionally used in this location to maintain land on the south west of the railway as part of a land stewardship scheme, will be diverted north and west from the level crossing on existing public highways for approximately 1.75km before crossing the railway at the existing highway bridge on Eastern Approach. On the west of the railway, users would be diverted along an existing public road to the waterfront before joining footpath EX/127/130 for approximately 350m to the sluice where the private vehicle will use an existing ramp to come off the footway/flood bund into the local nature reserve. 
    Private Level crossing infrastructure at Wivenhoe Park level crossing will be removed.

    THE NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER

  • Thanks @Jellyhead - yes the gazette article is a bit misleading!
  • I use the crossing from the cycle trail to near the woods, has no vehicular access, is this staying open. It's part of a good walk up to the current surgery, Horse & Groom etc.
  • Jellyhead said:
    Sads79 said:
    It does now look like they are going to build a footbridge...presumably at Paget Road crossing?

    http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/15206055.Six_level_crossings_to_be_downgraded_in_Colchester___with_new_footbridge_on_the_way/?ref=mr&lp=5

    E41 Paget
    Wivenhoe Parish  Grid Reference: 604058, 221615 Proposal Category: 4
     
    Existing Context Paget level crossing is traversed by a permissive footpath for pedestrian use. The crossing is located in a urban location, in the southern part of the Wivenhoe conurbation. There are residential properties immediately north and south of the level crossing. Proposed Work
    Existing route over the level crossing will be extinguished. 
    On the south side of the railway, users of the level crossing will be diverted along Paget Road mainly using the carriageway, and then along Anglesea Road (a privately maintained public road) using the carriageway heading north, before crossing the railway via an existing road bridge. Users will continue north along Anglesea Road to connect to Queens Road. Footways are available on Queens Road although a handrail will be provided due to the steepness of the gradient and a paved area will be reprofiled to a provide a flatter rest area with a bench. The current level crossing access on the south side of the railway will be removed. On the north side of the railway a new 1.5m wide stoned surface footpath link within Network Rail land will be created west from the level crossing to link to Phillip Road. This new footpath in Network Rail land would require a wooden footbridge less than 5m long to cross an existing watercourse and the footpath will be fenced off with 2.0m high steel palisade fencing. Users can the continue west along to High Street to use the existing road bridge to cross the railway. Widening of some of the existing footway on High Street over road bridge is proposed.  Level crossing infrastructure would be removed and 2.0m high steel palisade fencing installed to the north, and 1.8m high chain link fencing installed to the south of the level crossing, to prevent trespass onto the railway. New wayfinding signage would be provided.


    THE NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER
    If the closure goes ahead Network Rail's proposals for mitigation have some merit, but timing of the works will be crutial with the work on opening the new surgery in Philip Road going on too. Part of me thinks it may well run and run though! I think the last thing we would want is work starting just after the surgery moves! The widening of the footway over the High Street bridge is intriguing too and could be welcome but not at the expense of the roadway, buses and other vehicles have enough of a problem turning into Station Road as it is. 
  • Alfie1014 said:
    If the closure goes ahead Network Rail's proposals for mitigation have some merit, but timing of the works will be crutial with the work on opening the new surgery in Philip Road going on too. Part of me thinks it may well run and run though! I think the last thing we would want is work starting just after the surgery moves! The widening of the footway over the High Street bridge is intriguing too and could be welcome but not at the expense of the roadway, buses and other vehicles have enough of a problem turning into Station Road as it is. 
    It is not clear how the footway over the High St bridge could we widened consistent with the buses being able to turn out of Station Road.  They frequently have problems as it is and often have to mount the pavement on the Station side of the road.  It would be a disaster if a widening of the footway led to the buses companies refusing to go to the Station.  This bus route will be even more important once the surgery is moved to Phillip Road if the surgery is to be accessible by bus.  The pavement is narrow particularly on the Falcon side but so are a lot of other pavements in Wivenhoe (non existent on some streets).  I have never found using the bridge particularly dangerous if common sense is used.  Traffic using the bridge goes pretty slowly and it is possible to see that a bus is about to cross. If work is done it might be more sensible to widen the pavement on the Station side and give up the pretence of a pavement on the other side.
  • I'm wondering whether First have committed to using smaller buses down to the station, though it would still be a problem on rail replacement days. Maybe the answer is to turn it in to a pedestrian-priority environment. Wouldn't hurt all the way from Rollo's to Anchor Hill. Would slow down cars and buses to a crawl, including those going into the new surgery. 

    Maybe for another thread.
  • The buses that go down to the Station serve more than just Wivenhoe people and go all the way to the General Hospital.  There is also a school bus from the Colne.   Smaller buses would not seem feasible.  Currently there is a mixture of single and double deckers.
  • Mike said:
    I'm wondering whether First have committed to using smaller buses down to the station, though it would still be a problem on rail replacement days. Maybe the answer is to turn it in to a pedestrian-priority environment. Wouldn't hurt all the way from Rollo's to Anchor Hill. Would slow down cars and buses to a crawl, including those going into the new surgery. 

    Maybe for another thread.

    Totally agree with you there Mike regarding the pedestrian priority environment, I was thinking along the same lines.  I think the way forward would be to make the lower part of the High Street (the 20 mph zone) a shared space along the lines of what they have done with Exhibition Road in Kensington. Guaranteed not to please everyone!

    From the Grauniad Website:

    A farewell to pavements
  • Why not only have a pavement on one side of the Bridge - it could be wider than either of the current ones & allow the road to accommodate the buses.

    There are 4 buses an hour to/from the station & none after 8pm!


    We need double deckers on the routes which serve the University during term time.


  • Other large vehicles also need to turn here to/from Stn Rd to access anywhere on the west side of the bottom end of Wiv. There aren't many of them now but they still have to have a route. MOST of the length of the bridge could have the E side pavement widened, without affecting bus etc turning, indeed it already is supposed to be! Only the intransigence of Network Rail (yes them again!) has prevented progress by ECC with the permanent replacement of the plastic water bollards.

    But we have really always wanted the 20mph zone entrance feature narrowing to be by the Greyhound (where pavement also needs widening anyway). ECC have said we can't have one there because that would be too close to the next narrowing on the railway bridge. And the narrowing on the rly bridge is essential because Network Rail say the bridge (1950s concrete crap) is unable to bear the weight of vehicles in the outer parts of its width. (This is of course the same NR who are preventing ECC from actually doing it................Do not expect logic when NR are involved).


    Incidentally although the Draft Order empowers NR to do alterations to the High St in this area (= any alterations it wants to!) , it does not specify / limit what they are to be, nor does it REQUIRE them to do anything. So the situation is that they have waffled about doing something here to make the bridge 'safer' for people diverted from Paget Rd to the High St route, but they wouldn't actually be obliged to do anything.


    [If there was a pavement on one side of the bridge only, many people would have to cross the road twice, which would hardly be popular, nor would they actually do that in practice mostly].
  • kstkst
    edited April 9
    " MOST of the length of the bridge could have the E side pavement widened, without affecting bus etc turning"

    You got to be joking! Many times on the bus from the station has bumped over the west side and when the new surgery opens, you have to cross to the west and then back !!!!!!!!!! 
  • An irrelevant comment! When the buses hit the pavement on the west 
    side, coming out of Station Rd, it is because there is a vehicle left on the yellow lines outside the Grosvenor, or a vehicle has just turned into Station Rd and stopped there, so the bus driver has not been able to swing out to the right for the turn. It is nothing to do
    with the east side pavement on the northern half of the bridge. They have swung back in by then.

    Anyway - to something much more important!

    OBJECTING !!

    • Only just noticed that nothing has been said yet about how people can object!
    • It is vital that as many people as possible make a formal objection to the Sec of State for Transport. Nothing that you may have said so far to Network Rail, or in responses to the two Consultations last year, will be taken into consideration at the forthcoming formal stage - you have to start all over again!
    • Objections must be made now [actually by 12th May but do it now!] in writing to
    • Transport & Works Act Orders Unit
    • General Counsel's Office
    • Department for Transport
    • Zone 1/18
    • Great Minster House
    • 33 Horseferry Road
    • London SW1P 4DR
    • Letter must contain your postal address, and give your grounds of objection. As WTC will be making a very detailed objection there is no need for other objectors to spend time making a fully detailed case on every aspect, but merely point out that the crossing is not actual dangerous in practice as NR themselves have conceded, etc etc
    •    You might also request a public inquiry be held in respect of Paget Rd which has by far the highest number of opposing respondents in the consultation, of all the Essex crossings proposed for closure. [Unless there are lots of formal objections, public inquiries are not held].
    • Alternatively you can email transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk. Title the email ESSEX LEVEL CROSSINGS ORDER.
    •         But you must give you full name and postal address.

    DO IT NOW!!

  • Thanks for that, Peter.  If we stay silent, this popular crossing will simply be taken away from us...
  • peterkay said:
    An irrelevant comment! When the buses hit the pavement on the west 
    side, coming out of Station Rd, it is because there is a vehicle left on the yellow lines outside the Grosvenor, or a vehicle has just turned into Station Rd and stopped there, so the bus driver has not been able to swing out to the right for the turn. It is nothing to do
    with the east side pavement on the northern half of the bridge. They have swung back in by then.

    Anyway - to something much more important!

    OBJECTING !!

    • Only just noticed that nothing has been said yet about how people can object!
    • It is vital that as many people as possible make a formal objection to the Sec of State for Transport. Nothing that you may have said so far to Network Rail, or in responses to the two Consultations last year, will be taken into consideration at the forthcoming formal stage - you have to start all over again!
    • Objections must be made now [actually by 12th May but do it now!] in writing to
    • Transport & Works Act Orders Unit
    • General Counsel's Office
    • Department for Transport
    • Zone 1/18
    • Great Minster House
    • 33 Horseferry Road
    • London SW1P 4DR
    • Letter must contain your postal address, and give your grounds of objection. As WTC will be making a very detailed objection there is no need for other objectors to spend time making a fully detailed case on every aspect, but merely point out that the crossing is not actual dangerous in practice as NR themselves have conceded, etc etc
    •    You might also request a public inquiry be held in respect of Paget Rd which has by far the highest number of opposing respondents in the consultation, of all the Essex crossings proposed for closure. [Unless there are lots of formal objections, public inquiries are not held].
    • Alternatively you can email transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk. Title the email ESSEX LEVEL CROSSINGS ORDER.
    •         But you must give you full name and postal address.

    DO IT NOW!!

    Just emailed my objection off now. Do it now, don't leave it too late.

    Peter's post makes it easy if you are emailing don't forget to give your full name and postal address.  Thanks Peter
  • Anyone out there not got round to doing this yet?  The clock is ticking...
  • Done and had acknowledgement.
  • Great stuff! :)
  • Done as well. If you value this amenity, are concerned about the impacts on safety of diverting pedestrians on rather unsuitable routes, and are annoyed by the intimidation tactics of a Public Body, please take the time to write.
  • Done as well. Come on Wivenhonians - it doesn't take a moment to prevent these public rights being taken away - NB Paget Rd is E41, Sand Pit  is E42 and Wivenhoe Park is E57.   Email: transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk, entitle your email ESSEX LEVEL CROSSINGS ORDER and don't forget to include your full name and postal address. Thanks all.  
  • Done!
  • And done.
  • done
  • Me too
  • We have too and had a reply.
  • In my emailed objection I had mentioned that I thought this proposal merited a public enquiry and would want to request one.

    This morning I received a letter asking if I would wish to speak at the public enquiry if one were to be held.

    I believe that WTC has already submitted comprehensive objections (?) and imagine that councillors would have indicated they would want to speak at any enquiry.
    Perhaps a town councillor could confirm? 
Sign In or Register to comment.