Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 10

Point No 10 – The Impact on ‘The Junction’

Wisely, Bolton Council insisted that a study of the Impact on ‘The Junction’ of the development generated traffic be included in the Transport Assessment.

They have also insisted that their concerns about Pedestrian Safety be addressed in whatever plans are submitted.

Basically the argument is between providing safe passage for pedestrians to and from the area of the site and the ‘Junction’ seizing up – (Exceeding Capacity)

In my view it has been an exercise in fitting the Square Peg of Pedestrian Safety into the Round Hole of Junction Capacity.

_________________

The first thing to be appreciated and accepted is that the A6053 is a major arterial route from Radcliffe to Bolton and is occasionally an escape route from a clogged up M60 at Whitefield towards the M61.

Without this ‘through’ traffic and in relation to ‘local’ traffic, there would be little difficulty. However, we are where we are.

It is indisputable that at peak times the ‘Junction’ is a major headache for travellers. Traffic can be backed up Stopes Rd in one direction and back to Moses Gate in the other.

Because of the width of the roads, traffic turning right or stationary buses (let alone our beloved Lollipop man at Dearden St) can have a major delaying effect on the smooth flow of traffic. The zebra crossing is in fact the least cause of delays.

These problems exist now.

To pretend that sticking a Superstore with 171 car parking spaces within 50 metres of the Junction won’t have a severe effect on an already difficult situation, is fanciful at the best and absurd at the worst.

The Computer Modelling Exercise

This exercise has had a somewhat checkered history.

1)      The original modeling, done by Mr Patel at MVA Consultancy (before he went working for Tesco) using a software called Picardy 4, concluded that the only configuration for the Junction that worked was the existing one – ie One (existing) Zebra crossing. (See Appendix)

This didn’t satisfy Bolton Council’s pedestrian safety concerns.

2)      So Transport for Greater Manchester got involved.

They suggested that using Picardy 5 might allow Puffin Crossings across all four arms. (See Appendix)

3)      I contacted the designers of Picardy who said that Picardy was unsuitable for this peculiar Junction in any event.

They recommended a software called Transyt. (See Appendix)

4)      However, Mr Patel and Mr Mullen then redid the whole exercise using a further different software called Lynsig. (See Appendix)

This apparently produced the desired result - which allowed the ‘Junction’ to operate within capacity with Puffin crossings across Church St, Ainsworth Rd and Market St – PROVIDING that Lever St was made one way into the Junction

.

This gave rise to the Highways Plan which now accompanies this Planning Application.

Conclusion

It might occur to Members of the Committee, that the Transport Consultants should have had sufficient expertise to avoid the above convoluted playing around with modeling software – that is unless they were searching for a product which gave the required answer – ie the Junction ‘worked’ with the additional traffic and pedestrians crossings.

Indeed, they were reported to have commented that another type of modeling software could probably be found that showed that the Junction didn’t ‘work’.

The Members may therefore be inclined to temper this computer modeling with a dose of Commonsense and knowledge of the reality on the ground.

Notwithstanding all this, the submitted Highways Plan resulting from the above has implications, the consequences of which will be considered in Point No 11.