Worcestershire Parkway station progress

[deltic08]

It's called development. Progress. We still manage to build HS2 despite umpteen listed buildings, SSIs, AONBs and the rest.

Bushings roads wider than a single lane and car parks is pretty basic stuff. You call it 'farcical' but most other cities are 40-60 years ahead on these points.

Judging by the comments on their local news, most people in Worcester know their infrastructure is well below par and want something done about it.

But you still haven't answered Llanigrahams question. Do you live in Worcester or are familiar with the city?

 

[jayah]

But you still haven't answered Llanigrahams question. Do you live in Worcester or are familiar with the city?

Where I live is none of your business.

 

[jayah]

Who said it was? But when those of us who do actually know something about Worcester keep trying to get through to you how hard it would be to 'upgrade access' to Worcester Shrub Hill, however brilliant the planning might be, you just repeat the same old lines.

No wonder you don't want to get into a debate, when you appear to know next to nothing about Worcester. Or if you do actually know something, you are managing to keep it remarkably well hidden.

I can see plenty thank you. The development and infrastructure is well behind par for a comparable city. The idea you can't possibly build this and that because there is an old building in the way is blinkered and behind the times, while you seek to drag down more enlightened and developed cities by complaining about trifling road congestion.

Building thousands of new homes away from public transport makes the problem worse while short sightedness means the real problems that Parkway will not solve, don't get tackled because of a mentality you can't ever remove buildings or widen roads.

I don't need to be an expert on the breeding grounds on Worcester's Great Crested Newts to see that.

 

[Class172]

Where I live is none of your business.

That may be so, but you have deliberately avoided the question of what experience you have of city, irrespective of where you may have lived. That only makes it easy for the rest of us to come to our own conclusions.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Why is someone from Ripon (and even asking others where they come from) challenging transport investment in Worcestershire. It is so frustrating in this forum when people from some distance get involved claiming to know better than the locals. This Worcestershire resident is paying Council Tax for the useless project.

 

[jayah]

That may be so, but you have deliberately avoided the question of what experience you have of city, irrespective of where you may have lived. That only makes it easy for the rest of us to come to our own conclusions.

I think you are avoiding a discussion on the topic at hand by dragging up specious arguments like road congestion in York as pretty dismal excuses why apparently nothing can be done.

If you want to argue that road access to the two Worcester stations is great and parking ample go ahead. I don't agree. Nor do I agree that such problems are impossible to solve.

However Parkway with its 367 round trips a day in the Business Case certainly won't solve them.

There are times when being too heavily invested in Worcester may actually be a disadvantage.

 

[Class172]

I think you are avoiding a discussion on the topic at hand by dragging up specious arguments like road congestion in York as pretty dismal excuses why apparently nothing can be done.

If you want to argue that road access to the two Worcester stations is great and parking ample go ahead. I don't agree. Nor do I agree that such problems are impossible to solve.

However Parkway with its 367 round trips a day in the Business Case certainly won't solve them.

There are times when being too heavily invested in Worcester may actually be a disadvantage.

Before you throw accusations, may I suggest you check who has posted different messages, as I have not used York as an example in any of my posts.

I do not wish to argue that road access and parking to the two city centre stations is adequate, simply because it isn't and is well below par in some respects. What needs to be considered is cost however. Say I wanted to widen the tunnel for Newtown Road under the railway at Shrub Hill, where the city end is tightly constrained both by the road layout, but also steep gradients and surrounding buildings. Yes, you could flatten the buildings and plane the area, but the costs would be astronomical, and where would funding for such a project come from? Certainly not central government, as it is local project, and the local county authority would never be able to be in a financial position to support it.

A lot of the attractiveness to Worcestershire Parkway is not for the residents of the city, but the surrounding areas in the Wychavon and Malvern Hills district, who may currently drive to stations further afield such as Warwick Parkway and Cheltenham. These cars would have already been using the local road network, so there is a benefit that those people no longer will need to travel not-insignificant distances on the motorway.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's called development. Progress. We still manage to build HS2 despite umpteen listed buildings, SSIs, AONBs and the rest.

And the current Planning legislation does take into account my points.
And you choose to ignore them and fail to provide answers to my points.
And I see nothing here comparable to HS2.

Bushings roads wider than a single lane and car parks is pretty basic stuff. You call it 'farcical' but most other cities are 40-60 years ahead on these points.

I call your response farcical because you have totally ignored the physical problems present in that area.
You ignore the changes in Planning legislation in the last 40 - 60 years!
Do you know anything about current Planning legislation?
"Bushings"? Explain?

Judging by the comments on their local news, most people in Worcester know their infrastructure is well below par and want something done about it.

Evidence please?
I have friends and relatives in Worcester and yes they want to see an improvement in their transport links, but I see NO support for such preposterous or fanciful suggestions that you have proposed.
Perhaps I know Worcester better than you!!

Your comments suggest that you have no actual experience of Worcester.
You have been asked numerous times to explain how much you actually know of the City and what experience you have of it.

 

[deltic08]

Why is someone from Ripon (and even asking others where they come from) challenging transport investment in Worcestershire. It is so frustrating in this forum when people from some distance get involved claiming to know better than the locals. This Worcestershire resident is paying Council Tax for the useless project.

Because I was born and lived for 18 years within sight of the Malverns. I have as much right to comment and question about Worcester as you but haven't because I left 53 years ago. The Very Reverend Dean Marshall at the Cathedral was a very good friend until he emigrated. I am a distant relative of the family who run the car factory near there. Is that enough for you? I have not even once posted that I know Worcester because I left in 1965 and moved North so pull your neck in until you know the facts.

I was checking if jayah really was familiar with the Worcester area and that would have shut up his critics. His reply gave me what I wanted to know. He didn't even reply he was familiar with Worcester.

If council tax money hadn't been spent on a new station, it would just have been spent on roads and to my mind that is a waste of money in this day and age..

 

[Pigeon]

Say I wanted to widen the tunnel for Newtown Road under the railway at Shrub Hill, where the city end is tightly constrained both by the road layout, but also steep gradients and surrounding buildings. Yes, you could flatten the buildings and plane the area

It has to be said though that this has wanted doing for yonks, and all the more so since Tallow Hill was made into a big road and traffic lights put in at its junction, also the Sherriff Street traffic lights put in at the other end. There are now too many different sets of traffic lights all on top of each other, so that, for instance, when the Tallow Hill lights let go you still can't get across the junction because the tailback from the underbridge is blocking it, and the underbridge in turn is choked by the tailback from Sherriff Street. Removing that single-lane section would do an awful lot to unchoke the traffic flow over quite a wide surrounding area.

It does not require large-scale demolition or anything of the kind, either. It is almost wide enough as it is for two lanes if it didn't have to have the pavement going under it as well; it just needs the single-lane section broadened to the same width as the double-lane bit under the iron spans on the east side, by excavating two or three metres from the south side of the "tunnel". No need to touch any of the buildings as they're all on the other side of Midland Road. Probably the trickiest bit would be not accidentally making the signal box fall down, and sooner or later the area is going to get resignalled after which that problem won't arise any more.

As I've already pointed out, sorting the parking space for Shrub Hill is easy because there's all the redundant siding space behind the station to make a car park with access from Sherriff Street. This is of course accessible from the east without bothering about the single lane underbridge at all.

For people coming from the west it would be far better to provide a station on the west side of the river, not make them go five miles further round the already-congested bypass to a redundant station originally conceived in the 70s as being the best hope for providing some sort of improved service from the Worcester area to Cheltenham/Gloucester/Bristol and unfortunately not dropped when the logic behind that idea was overtaken by events. Which is actually something the county council are considering, they just haven't got their priorities in the right order. By chance the other day I happened upon an old newspaper from 2016 reporting on this idea. I think this: http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news...ar_Worcester_by_2030__suggest_council_chiefs/ is the online version of the same article but the link is 503ing at the moment. It should be Rushwick that is due to open soon and Stoulton Road that might happen "by 2030" if only the council weren't, well, a council.

 

[jayah]

And the current Planning legislation does take into account my points.
And you choose to ignore them and fail to provide answers to my points.
And I see nothing here comparable to HS2.


I call your response farcical because you have totally ignored the physical problems present in that area.
You ignore the changes in Planning legislation in the last 40 - 60 years!
Do you know anything about current Planning legislation?
"Bushings"? Explain?


Evidence please?
I have friends and relatives in Worcester and yes they want to see an improvement in their transport links, but I see NO support for such preposterous or fanciful suggestions that you have proposed.
Perhaps I know Worcester better than you!!

Your comments suggest that you have no actual experience of Worcester.
You have been asked numerous times to explain how much you actually know of the City and what experience you have of it.

I suggest you know Worcester and not much else? The difficulties in Worcester are no greater than elsewhere and most other cities solved them decades ago so they are not insurmountable.

The problems of poor roads and almost non existent parking at Shrub Hill are certainly not insurmountable. But they will not be solved by Parkway.

Think of it the other way - would closing 80% of the 500-600 car parking places at York or Exeter stations be seen as a positive step?

 

[jayah]

Because I was born and lived for 18 years within sight of the Malverns. I have as much right to comment and question about Worcester as you but haven't because I left 53 years ago. The Very Reverend Dean Marshall at the Cathedral was a very good friend until he emigrated. I am a distant relative of the family who run the car factory near there. Is that enough for you? I have not even once posted that I know Worcester because I left in 1965 and moved North so pull your neck in until you know the facts.

I was checking if jayah really was familiar with the Worcester area and that would have shut up his critics. His reply gave me what I wanted to know. He didn't even reply he was familiar with Worcester.

If council tax money hadn't been spent on a new station, it would just have been spent on roads and to my mind that is a waste of money in this day and age..

Worcester needs roads. Anyone standing on a low chair can see the clamour for the Northern bypass, the one that will be blocked by the massive expansion of housing to the west, remote from all 3 railway stations.

Perhaps you aren't as close to the pulse of Worcester as you like to think?

 

[Pigeon]

I suggest you know Worcester and not much else? The difficulties in Worcester are no greater than elsewhere and most other cities solved them decades ago so they are not insurmountable.

They pretty much are, though. As I pointed out above the immediate situation around Shrub Hill itself would be significantly eased by widening the Newtown Road underbridge and providing car parking round the back, but that would do nothing for the main body of the city. The difficulty of "crossing the river", for instance, is not because of a "narrow bridge"; it's two lanes in each direction. It's because of the tangle of streets it feeds into on the east side. To the extent that anything can be done about this, it already has been done many many years ago. To do anything further it wouldn't be enough to simply widen streets, as the root of the problem is not the streets themselves but the junctions between them and the conflicting flows of traffic to different destinations causing those junctions to choke up. Dealing with that is effectively impossible because there simply isn't room for any kind of solution and the city centre itself to exist in the same space. It's essentially irrelevant to argue about listed building restrictions and the like, because the scale of demolition that would actually be needed is more commonly associated with taking 5kg of an artificially-created metal and giving it a jolly good squeeze.

 

[jimm]

It has to be said though that this has wanted doing for yonks, and all the more so since Tallow Hill was made into a big road and traffic lights put in at its junction, also the Sherriff Street traffic lights put in at the other end. There are now too many different sets of traffic lights all on top of each other, so that, for instance, when the Tallow Hill lights let go you still can't get across the junction because the tailback from the underbridge is blocking it, and the underbridge in turn is choked by the tailback from Sherriff Street. Removing that single-lane section would do an awful lot to unchoke the traffic flow over quite a wide surrounding area.

It does not require large-scale demolition or anything of the kind, either. It is almost wide enough as it is for two lanes if it didn't have to have the pavement going under it as well; it just needs the single-lane section broadened to the same width as the double-lane bit under the iron spans on the east side, by excavating two or three metres from the south side of the "tunnel". No need to touch any of the buildings as they're all on the other side of Midland Road. Probably the trickiest bit would be not accidentally making the signal box fall down, and sooner or later the area is going to get resignalled after which that problem won't arise any more.

As I've already pointed out, sorting the parking space for Shrub Hill is easy because there's all the redundant siding space behind the station to make a car park with access from Sherriff Street. This is of course accessible from the east without bothering about the single lane underbridge at all.

For people coming from the west it would be far better to provide a station on the west side of the river, not make them go five miles further round the already-congested bypass to a redundant station originally conceived in the 70s as being the best hope for providing some sort of improved service from the Worcester area to Cheltenham/Gloucester/Bristol and unfortunately not dropped when the logic behind that idea was overtaken by events. Which is actually something the county council are considering, they just haven't got their priorities in the right order. By chance the other day I happened upon an old newspaper from 2016 reporting on this idea. I think this: http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news...ar_Worcester_by_2030__suggest_council_chiefs/ is the online version of the same article but the link is 503ing at the moment. It should be Rushwick that is due to open soon and Stoulton Road that might happen "by 2030" if only the council weren't, well, a council.

Whatever you do about bits and pieces of road near Shrub Hill, there remains the fact that the city's arterial roads are mainly single carriageway in all directions and can get extremely busy at just about any time of the day for various reason, not just peak demand, and there is just one central road bridge over the Severn. And to do anything to improve most of those, it certainly would be a case of send in the bulldozers.

The Parkway is a fact on the ground, so there is no point rehashing old arguments about whether or not it should exist or what someone's motivations might have been in the 1970s.

If there was a station at Henwick or somewhere else west of the river, what trains would serve it?

As I've said above, London trains will soon be making three calls in four miles to serve a city of 100,000 people. Far larger places have to make do with one or two main line stations.

Are you seriously suggesting a fourth Worcester call on London trains to/from Hereford and Malvern should be added another mile further along the line, with Malvern Link just six miles beyond that?

People in Worcester are the ones who complain loudest about trains making 'too many' stops in 'villages' on the way to Oxford...

 

[takno]

It does not require large-scale demolition or anything of the kind, either. It is almost wide enough as it is for two lanes if it didn't have to have the pavement going under it as well; it just needs the single-lane section broadened to the same width as the double-lane bit under the iron spans on the east side, by excavating two or three metres from the south side of the "tunnel". No need to touch any of the buildings as they're all on the other side of Midland Road. Probably the trickiest bit would be not accidentally making the signal box fall down, and sooner or later the area is going to get resignalled after which that problem won't arise any more.

I don't think it's a particularly trivial job, but there's definitely no obvious land-take involved.

On the face of it the rail level would work better if you got rid of the completely unused bits of yard and the approach to the old parcels bays. You could then straighten up the approach to platform 3 and the back road. If that was done the tunnel could be replaced with two much shorter wider girder bridges, and the two existing girder bridges could go completely.

I'm not generally in favour of anything that makes life easier for traffic, since the experience almost everywhere is that you just magic up more cars to take up the capacity. Making those changes though is potentially a fraction of the cost of something like Worcestershire Parkway, eases access to public transport, and opens up a whole area of the city that is currently hell to walk or drive from into town.

 

[jayah]

Whatever you do about bits and pieces of road near Shrub Hill, there remains the fact that the city's arterial roads are mainly single carriageway in all directions and can get extremely busy at just about any time of the day for various reason, not just peak demand, and there is just one central road bridge over the Severn. And to do anything to improve most of those, it certainly would be a case of send in the bulldozers.

The Parkway is a fact on the ground, so there is no point rehashing old arguments about whether or not it should exist or what someone's motivations might have been in the 1970s.

If there was a station at Henwick or somewhere else west of the river, what trains would serve it?

As I've said above, London trains will soon be making three calls in four miles to serve a city of 100,000 people. Far larger places have to make do with one or two main line stations.

Are you seriously suggesting a fourth Worcester call on London trains to/from Hereford and Malvern should be added another mile further along the line, with Malvern Link just six miles beyond that?

People in Worcester are the ones who complain loudest about trains making 'too many' stops in 'villages' on the way to Oxford...

Let them complain. A few minutes is not the end of the world. Parkway may be a fact but it isn't going to solve any of the problems elsewhere in Worcester. Nor does it explain the decision to build new housing blocking the northern bypass instead of around the brand new station.

Bulldozers yes, Worcester is a long way behind the curve. There is probably a good case for a Henwick station similar to Exeter St Thomas but I am not convinced about London connections. Of course if they hadn't built this 200k annual footfall Parkway it would be the third station and not the fourth.

 

[Pigeon]

Are you seriously suggesting a fourth Worcester call on London trains to/from Hereford and Malvern should be added another mile further along the line, with Malvern Link just six miles beyond that?

No, I'm suggesting a third call, in the main centre of population west of the river, instead of a third call in the middle of nowhere which is no closer to the aforementioned centre of population than Malvern Link is already. I'm criticising the council for persisting with an idea for making the best of a 70s-era bad situation long after that situation has changed so as to make the idea redundant, and not recognising long ago that the resources would be better used on providing a station in an expanding population area than on a station miles away on the other side of town that won't do anything meaningful to provide the service that area lacks. I'm suggesting that the sooner they stop spending money on a station in the middle of nowhere and start spending it on one in a population centre then the less money will be wasted and the more will be available to do something useful, and it doesn't matter if that "more" includes a bit extra for selling off the site. I'm suggesting also that the residents of the east side of Worcester would be better served by improving the access and parking to the existing station in Worcester already serving that area, than by using the land for offices instead (which I believe is the current plan) thereby adding to the traffic and making access even worse while also making it that much harder to do anything about it, with some idea that a new station miles away somehow provides an adequate substitute. I'm pointing out that because you can't do anything about the city centre, so no matter what you do around Shrub Hill there's still no way to make it usefully accessible from the west side of the city, then it makes sense to provide a station in the west side of the city as well, since otherwise you've only got half a solution.

 

[Pigeon]

Nor does it explain the decision to build new housing blocking the northern bypass instead of around the brand new station.

That is explained by it being in the middle of a field miles away from the actual city.

Bulldozers yes, Worcester is a long way behind the curve.

No, see above, in terms of new construction it did what could be done a long time ago, and the level of destruction needed to do any more is usually carried out by other means.

(York, hmm, I lived in York once; the traffic was bloody awful and you could barely get near the city centre in it. That was a long time ago, so no doubt it's a lot worse now, but Worcester now is still better than York then.)

 

[Llanigraham]

I suggest you know Worcester and not much else? The difficulties in Worcester are no greater than elsewhere and most other cities solved them decades ago so they are not insurmountable.

The problems of poor roads and almost non existent parking at Shrub Hill are certainly not insurmountable. But they will not be solved by Parkway.

Think of it the other way - would closing 80% of the 500-600 car parking places at York or Exeter stations be seen as a positive step?

You do not know my past employment nor my current situation, so I would suggest that your insult is unwarranted, and somewhat ignorant.
And you have again totally ignored my points in this response and in previous responses.

Your response above shows that you know NOTHING about the locale of Shrub Hill, and have totally ignored the responses from those that do.

I fail to see what York or Exeter have to do with the situation at Worcester, other than you trying to include spurious arguements.

And I ask again, what experience of Worester do you actually have? Note, I am not asking where or how you live, but simply your ACTUAL experience?

 

[Llanigraham]

Worcester needs roads. Anyone standing on a low chair can see the clamour for the Northern bypass, the one that will be blocked by the massive expansion of housing to the west, remote from all 3 railway stations.

Perhaps you aren't as close to the pulse of Worcester as you like to think?

I have seen no response from Worcester residents for a northern by-pass, especially since the A449 between Hawford/Claines to the M5 Worcster North Junction does exactly that. I have also seen no request for any Worcester residents or organisations for a by-pass from the A449 westward towards the A44 Bromyard road where it would join the western route.

Can I suggest that if you know otherwise you provide factual evidence of such?

 

[jimm]

No, I'm suggesting a third call, in the main centre of population west of the river, instead of a third call in the middle of nowhere which is no closer to the aforementioned centre of population than Malvern Link is already. I'm criticising the council for persisting with an idea for making the best of a 70s-era bad situation long after that situation has changed so as to make the idea redundant, and not recognising long ago that the resources would be better used on providing a station in an expanding population area than on a station miles away on the other side of town that won't do anything meaningful to provide the service that area lacks. I'm suggesting that the sooner they stop spending money on a station in the middle of nowhere and start spending it on one in a population centre then the less money will be wasted and the more will be available to do something useful, and it doesn't matter if that "more" includes a bit extra for selling off the site. I'm suggesting also that the residents of the east side of Worcester would be better served by improving the access and parking to the existing station in Worcester already serving that area, than by using the land for offices instead (which I believe is the current plan) thereby adding to the traffic and making access even worse while also making it that much harder to do anything about it, with some idea that a new station miles away somehow provides an adequate substitute. I'm pointing out that because you can't do anything about the city centre, so no matter what you do around Shrub Hill there's still no way to make it usefully accessible from the west side of the city, then it makes sense to provide a station in the west side of the city as well, since otherwise you've only got half a solution.

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The Parkway is a fact on the ground. A location a mile and a half from a motorway junction and the eastern bypass and four miles from the city centre is not my idea of the middle of nowhere.

 

[deltic08]

No, I'm suggesting a third call, in the main centre of population west of the river, instead of a third call in the middle of nowhere which is no closer to the aforementioned centre of population than Malvern Link is already. I'm criticising the council for persisting with an idea for making the best of a 70s-era bad situation long after that situation has changed so as to make the idea redundant, and not recognising long ago that the resources would be better used on providing a station in an expanding population area than on a station miles away on the other side of town that won't do anything meaningful to provide the service that area lacks. I'm suggesting that the sooner they stop spending money on a station in the middle of nowhere and start spending it on one in a population centre then the less money will be wasted and the more will be available to do something useful, and it doesn't matter if that "more" includes a bit extra for selling off the site. I'm suggesting also that the residents of the east side of Worcester would be better served by improving the access and parking to the existing station in Worcester already serving that area, than by using the land for offices instead (which I believe is the current plan) thereby adding to the traffic and making access even worse while also making it that much harder to do anything about it, with some idea that a new station miles away somehow provides an adequate substitute. I'm pointing out that because you can't do anything about the city centre, so no matter what you do around Shrub Hill there's still no way to make it usefully accessible from the west side of the city, then it makes sense to provide a station in the west side of the city as well, since otherwise you've only got half a solution.

I think the accent is on "Parkway" which by definition is out of town and easily accessible from a major road network e.g. Bristol, Warwick, Stratford, Bodmin, Leeds .

 

[jayah]

I have seen no response from Worcester residents for a northern by-pass, especially since the A449 between Hawford/Claines to the M5 Worcster North Junction does exactly that. I have also seen no request for any Worcester residents or organisations for a by-pass from the A449 westward towards the A44 Bromyard road where it would join the western route.

Can I suggest that if you know otherwise you provide factual evidence of such?

There are plenty of calls from local politicians and others (see below)


https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/11491152.exclusive-no-northern-relief-link-road-before-2030/

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/14550052.mondays-letters-including-what-happened-to-our-bypass/

 

[Llanigraham]

You don't get it, do you?
Link 1 above is from 2014 and of no relevance to today's discussion.
Link 2 is from ONE person 2 years ago.
That is NOT plenty of calls.

As you may have noticed I have mentioned that I have family and friends in the City of Worcester and none of them are talking about this supposed road problem to the north-west of the City. I have mentioned to them your proposal for increasing traffic to Shrub Hill and frankly I would get banned from here if I wrote their responses. In fact friends that live in Warndon Villages are looking forward to the opening of Worcester Parkway as it will mean they can easily get to the station in their car instead of currently needing to get a taxi to Shrub Hill because there is no car parking there.

Your comments in this thread show you have no idea what the situation is in Worcester, and have repeatedly refused to provide numerous requests from us with the details of your knowledge of the City. And no-one has asked if you live there! I suggest that you start listening to the comments from people who know, live and work in the City and take note of their comments.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Worcester needs roads. Anyone standing on a low chair can see the clamour for the Northern bypass, the one that will be blocked by the massive expansion of housing to the west, remote from all 3 railway stations.

Nope. Worcester has plenty of roads. It just needs to use them better.

Here's what happens if you provide infrastructure to allow people to travel safely along roads by bike and foot:

That's Amsterdam. 70% of all trips under 5km are made by foot, bike or public transport. For shorter distances it's greater still.

Worcester is only 5km radius at its greatest point (city centre to Warndon). It's a small city. If Worcester's roads were remotely bike-friendly then there need be no issue with congestion at all. Unfortunately, as tends to be the way when the highways authority is a Tory shire council, this isn't the case; there isn't even a safe way to cycle north-south across the city centre between the riverside path and the canal towpath. Such a missed opportunity.

(And since this thread seems to require parading Worcester bona fides, we moor our narrowboat in the city, at Diglis Basin; visit regularly, and have done so for 20 years.)

 

[johnnychips]

^ How hilly is Worcester?

(If we all have to declare our connections to it, I bought petrol there about six years ago and put 98 instead of 95 in by accident).

 

[Pigeon]

The hills on the east side (the major side) are a sod. I used to struggle cycling up them when I was a healthy youngster at school. These days I take a taxi in preference to walking up them. City centre to Warndon makes it worse because you start going down the other side, so it gives you adverse gradients in both directions. When I lived in Bedford I used to cycle everywhere because there's only one hill and for most journeys it's either irrelevant or dodgeable. Worcester is a different matter and nowadays my bicycle just never gets used.

The trouble with cycling enthusiasts is they don't seem to notice themselves how hard it is going up hills (or maybe they just don't care because they think making themselves knackered is half the point) so they assume nobody else does either and therefore think comparisons with dead flat places in other countries are valid.

As for the northern bypass, there have been people wanting this for ages. The A449 doesn't count because it doesn't cross the river. There is no bridge northwards until Holt Fleet and getting out to that involves dealing with the traffic jams on the west side of the river caused by everyone funnelling across the city bridge anyway. And when Holt Fleet bridge was closed for strengthening work a few years ago the need was made even more obvious.

 

[InOban]

Just the place for an e-bike.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Worcester is no hillier than Aarhus (30% journeys by bike). Or Bristol, come to think of it. Though if you're going between the city centre and Warndon, why are you worried about hills? Just stick to the canal towpath.

(It does also have two specialist e-bike retailers - as anyone who's glanced out the window on the eastern approach to Shrub Hill will know.)

The trouble with cycling enthusiasts is they don't seem to notice themselves how hard it is going up hills

People posting on rail forums should really be careful about generalising "The trouble with n enthusiasts"...

 

[Pigeon]

Though if you're going between the city centre and Warndon, why are you worried about hills? Just stick to the canal towpath.

Warndon as in the new housing estates on the east side, getting to which means Newtown Road or Tolladine Road. Canal doesn't go anywhere near them. It would have been a valid route "to Warndon" before those estates were built, when "Warndon" was basically an alias for "M5 J6", but still a heck of a long way round.

I never found it much use as a cycling route anyway - muddy soft surface which absorbs loads of energy and makes it really slow and difficult, and things that keep getting in the way. Fine if you're actually wanting to look at the canal, but for practical uses the roads are invariably less hassle.