Morrison vehicles regularly "short cut" through Tenbury to save the 2.3 miles extra driving up the A49 to the A456. Of course there is no legal reason why they shouldn't use the A4112, although it is signposted as unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles.
Morrisons do have an Environmental Policy and one of their measurements is how many cases they move per kilometre, so they plan to use the shortest routes.
In logistics, we measure route planning efficiency in terms of how many cases per kilometre we are able to move. Over the last two years we have increased the number of cases per km by 12.7%.
A Morrisons driver did come amiss this week when he misread all the diversion & road closed signs and ended up in the Old Cattle Market temporary car park. He also went on to prove that turning left out of the site is virtually impossible for a vehicle of that size.
Posts
23 comments:
....showing how unsuitable the site is for a Tesco superstore....
It has always been acknowledged by the developers that the Tesco delivery lorries would only be able to turn right out of the entrance and that only shorter articulated trailers should be used.
It is however a good illustration why the route through the cattle market is unsuitable for a relief road or temporary bridge with all traffic having to turn left.
If you are right and only shorter trailers could be used, how can the council say NO highways issues affect Tesco's plan?
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Tesco's aren't applying for a relief road through the site. If their delivery plan calls for smaller "urban" delivery options instead of the full length trunk route trailers why is it a highways issue?
Its a highways issue because as you know if you happen to meet any large vechicle on the bridge you cannot pass it without stopping.
Also smaller trailers means more frequent deliveries .
The width of the bridge has nothing to do with the Tesco application. Many lorries use it everyday, including quite a few Morrisons lorries.
[Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991]
145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34
Perhaps WCC should be aware of this Law .
Well I suppose banning all HGV traffic & all farm traffic & all buses would make you popular with some people, but you can't just ban lorries with red & blue logos.
I am not sure I agree with all of this.
Despite tha fact that published data shows that the population of Tenbury and surrounding parishes has increased by 80% in the past 20 years, the Tesco planning application is based on an assumption of total 6.6% growth in base traffic volumes over 12 years.
Even based on their totally unrealistic assumption, the Teme Street Tesco junction is forecast by Tesco to accommodate in 2016 a total of 1070 vehicles per hour(18 per minute)on a weekday afternoon. This includes 272 turning in and out of the Tesco access road (4 per minute) mingling with pedestrians walking between the bridge and the town centre.
When the inevitable accident occurred stopping the traffic, the emergency vehicles would be unable to cross the bridge because in the 10 minutes it would take for them to arrive, another 94 vehicles would have tried to arrive in Teme Street from the A456 and another 74 from the Market Street direction to join the queues.
Is there not a bit of a highways issue in this somewhere ?
Banning trucks except for access would make sense
Access to where? Tenbury, Bromyard, Kimbolton? I think it would be unenforceable on an A road.
It is practical to put a restriction on an A road - the 7.5T limit on the A443 (Holt Bridge) for example.
But that was for the bridge. No one had access exemptions.
Delivery vehicles to Tesco will arrive and leave as they want - one would have to be very naive to think they will always arrive and leave via the bridge.
For some examples of Tesco ignoring planning conditions, click the heading to this post.
I think it's equally naive to think that all but a very few drivers of the Tesco articulated lorries (because it wouldn't apply to bread lorries etc) would choose to leave in the wrong direction and wedge themselves across Teme Street.
Morrisons would have had hundreds of deliveries since the bridge closed and to my knowledge this is the first of their drivers to take the wrong route and get stuck.
I think some of the readers of the blog have Tesco Tourette's syndrome. Every post has to be about Tesco!
The problem would surely be alleviated if the parking in front of Spar and Lloyds was removed/reduced - o wait a minute, in additon to the spaces to be lost to the Public realm works...
There is already a shortage of parking without loosing more...
I thought that the 7.5T limit on Holt Bridge was posted as a precautionary measure before they undertook the repairs - and that the notices have just never been removed . . . but, of course, I may be mistaken.
Unless my eyes deceived me, the 7.5T restriction notices at Holt Heath were removed a week or two after the bridge reopened - presumably when the Highways Department got round to it.
I'm working in Solihull today and will go via Holt Bridge . . . I'll see if I can spot a left-over sign!
I couldn't!!
The 7.5T limit at Holt Fleet went after the work was finished.
That weight limit was introduced as an emergency measure due to structural problems with that bridge.
errrrrr . . . I think we knew that!
Post a Comment