Rimrose Valley Country Park | Port of Liverpool Access Road | Proposed

jetsetwilly said:

Any loss of green space is sad, of course, and I sympathise with everyone who's going to lose some valued parkland. In an ideal world, a tunnel would be built to carry the traffic.

But... this isn't an ancient woodland; it's a park that was created in the 90s from a former tip. It's only become a park fairly recently. And the new road won't swallow up the entire park - there will still be green space around it with, I should imagine, a lot of new planting to help mask the road noise and pollution. It's not ideal, but neither is upgrading the already overloaded A5036, which is lined with homes and shops.

Again, ideally there would be a tunnel, but with all that open land available, I'm not surprised this is the option they went with.

Click to expand...

I appreciate it's not an ancient woodland, but it is a beautiful country park that has evolved over 20+ years and is the only natural open pollution free space in this heavily built up area.
It is a much loved and needed space and it's loss will have a devastating effect on the local community.

And sadly it will swallow up the whole park, the road is being built right through the middle of it from end to end, effectively leaving a long strip either side.

The green space left either side will be within what's classed as a high toxicity area in terms of pollution (due to being right next to a major road, one which will have HGV's using it 24 hours a day going to and from the recently expanded port) and the constant traffic will be both highly visible and easily heard from the what's left of the park, no amount of planting will stop this. Not to mention the devastating effect on the wide and varied wildlife who live within the park.

I do agree with your comments re the other "option", the upgrading of the A5036. This was never a serious option as any upgrade would not even come close to providing the required improvements needed for the increased traffic.

Highways England admitted this themselves in their announcement. This is not something that they have just suddenly realised during the 6 week "public consultation" they have known this for years, there was only ever going to be one outcome as they refused to include the only other 2 viable options (tunnel or rail) during the consultation because they would cost too much money. Profits and cost are sadly much more important than the people who live in the effected areas.

Anyway, sorry, rant over, I don't want this thread to be a big debate about the pro's and con's of the road, I would like this thread to be a celebration of the park and for people to post their pictures before it is potentially lost forever.

I'll add some more pics tomorrow when I get the chance.

I'll admit my total ignorance of the Rimrose Valley park as I have never set foot in it but Dan's photos show it to be a really attractive space.

I don't see the argument that it used to be a waste dump is an acceptable way of condoning its partial destruction. The same can be said of Otterspool Park but I think there would be a lot of protest if anyone suggested running a dual carriageway road through it.

In fact, you could make the opposite case - this area used to be a blight on the community - a source of visual ugliness and possible toxicity - now it is an asset to the local area. The value of city parks is difficult to quantify but it is known that they improve the health and wellbeing of the local community.

We talk a lot about the north south divide - the fact that people in the South of England live longer than those in the North but it is not often appreciated that this divide exists in Liverpool and that people who grow up in Childwall are likely to live some 13 years longer than those who live in Kirkdale.

I can't help but feel that if the park being threatened was Calderstones, Sefton or Otterspool that there would be far more fuss made about it.

It's a dilemma - we all want to see expansion of the port due to the jobs and business that it will create and, though rail transport is part of the solution, it won't remove the fact that a large part of the traffic from the port will inevitably be road based.

The ideal solution would be a tunnel like the Dublin Port Tunnel but that would be prohibitively expensive over the length required to get to the motorway network. I think though that what is proposed here is the cheapest solution possible. An acceptable solution may be to put the first half mile to mile of road in a cut and cover tunnel so that, when the road finally emerges it will not take up too great a proportion of the width of the park.

Martin S said:

An acceptable solution may be to put the first half mile to mile of road in a cut and cover tunnel so that, when the road finally emerges it will not take up too great a proportion of the width of the park.

Click to expand...

A comment I read elsewhere raised what feels like a pertinent point. As a former landfill site, would any kind of tunnelling not prove problematic? Tunnels are expensive enough as they are without have to deal with tonnes of waste when you start to dig down. I understand not all of the site was used as landfill, so tunnels could work in the right locations, but it seems like something to be aware of, and certainly something proponents of a fully tunnelled route should be mindful of.

You also mention the width of the park. Looking at Google Maps, it does seem the park, even at its narrowest, is significantly wider than a dual-carriageway (using the existing Church Road/Princess Way as a comparison). Therefore, while I don't dispute there would be some impact, a careful routing of the line of the road, keeping it close to one side, would allow the remaining width to remain as a reasonably sized open space. Unfortunately the indicative document shows the road alignment taking a centre-line through. Maybe that is something that should be objected to, as I feel a changing of the alignment is more much feasible and more likely to succeed, than campaigning to stop the road altogether. Especially as I think the one thing all sides agree on is maintaining the status quo isn't an option.

B&I said:

But is the inevitable result of skewing it to one side not that the adjoining residential.areas will then have to put up with intolerable noise and pollution levels?

Click to expand...

It would, but when driving a road through a green space, there is likely never going to be a perfect solution. Sending it centrally pretty much destroys the whole thing. Shifting it sideways, leaves you with something, even if there is still an impact. In mitigation however, looking at the aerial maps, if the road was pushed closer to the Litherland side, rather than towards Crosby, you could benefit from the canal providing extra separation distance between the new road and the nearest properties. There also appears to be several groupings of mature trees alongside the canal's path. Keep the road to the other side of these, and you benefit from both noise and visual screening from the trees. In addition, from an economic perspective, the proposed route is broadly speaking semi-circular, so taking the shorter 'inner' alignment would probably save some money, which would keep the button counters happy too.

B&I said:

What mitigation measures, if any, would be possible if the road was to be built along the planned alignment?

Click to expand...

Acknowledging my previous point about encountering rubbish beneath the surface, I'd imagine sinking the road into a trench where possible might help, if only by a few metres. Trees lining the route would also help. That would help with noise and visual blight, but in terms of the actual park land, and its day-to-day use by locals, with that alignment I'm not sure you can mitigate that much to be honest.

Chris B said:

A comment I read elsewhere raised what feels like a pertinent point. As a former landfill site, would any kind of tunnelling not prove problematic? Tunnels are expensive enough as they are without have to deal with tonnes of waste when you start to dig down. I understand not all of the site was used as landfill, so tunnels could work in the right locations, but it seems like something to be aware of, and certainly something proponents of a fully tunnelled route should be mindful of.

You also mention the width of the park. Looking at Google Maps, it does seem the park, even at its narrowest, is significantly wider than a dual-carriageway (using the existing Church Road/Princess Way as a comparison). Therefore, while I don't dispute there would be some impact, a careful routing of the line of the road, keeping it close to one side, would allow the remaining width to remain as a reasonably sized open space. Unfortunately the indicative document shows the road alignment taking a centre-line through. Maybe that is something that should be objected to, as I feel a changing of the alignment is more much feasible and more likely to succeed, than campaigning to stop the road altogether. Especially as I think the one thing all sides agree on is maintaining the status quo isn't an option.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the waste issue would have an impact - but then a bored tunnel (like the Dublin one) would not necessarily have to follow the line of the park. Even constructing at ground level would be problematic as piled foundations might well be required as waste material is often subject to settlement.

I wouldn't pretend that there is a cheap solution to this problem but it comes down to just how much we value parkland in urban areas - especially urban areas that don't have many alternatives.

Tunnelling is very expensive but there might be a cheaper alternative. Central Park in New York is crossed by two roads that connect the two halves of Manhattan divided by the park. They don't make a great deal of impact because they are sunken below ground level and edged with trees and other landscaping that reduce the noise and pollution and eliminate the visual intrusion. Park roads are taken over the roads on elegant bridges, so ensuring the continuity of the parkland.

Something like that, though it wouldn't eliminate the buried waste issue would be less expensive than tunnelling.

Martin S said:

There is a link between HS2 / NPR and this road but I don't think it as an either / or.

Certainly the new rail links would free up capacity for freight on the existing network but I don't think it is realistic to believe that the reduction in road transport would be sufficient to remove the need for additional road infrastructure to serve the Port of Liverpool.

At least this road provides new infrastructure but it does so in an environmentally damaging way. The fact that Sefton Council has opposed the Rimrose Valley route but it is still to go ahead shows that action needs to be taken at the highest level - certainly it would be good to get Steve Rotherham's views on the subject.

Click to expand...

If Liverpool2 is to capture major new services, it will need to have to infrastructure to service the whole country, and not just the north west of England and North Wales which in recent years has been the main thrust of additional throughput. For this reason, Peel will have to facilitate development of rail links to and from the port which will include the ability to cater for intermodal moves and to this end I understand Peel currently have plans before their board awaiting approval. I can't see those plans including a new rail link to the national network, but rather more investment in existing facilities with the port estate and upgrading the existing connection to the national network near to Rimrose Road.

It's all very well suggesting moving the freight from road to rail and build a new rail link, but fact of the situation is that a new rail link from the Port of Liverpool would be very expensive and could involve substantial demolition of private property and still not solve the problem of the remaining HGV's being able to reach the motorway network or more local locations. This is also perhaps another aspect of the entire port development we should also consider.

Peel have always stated the new terminal would bring many new jobs to area, the actual numbers are immaterial except to say the direct jobs, ie those employed within the port industry will be relatively small because transferring full containers between transport and ship and vice versa requires very little human intervention, even when taking into consideration the associated jobs that are required to make it happen 24/7, 365 days a year.

The real boost in jobs comes from activities related to unloading and loading containers which are not delivered too or loaded at a receivers or manufacturers premises. Perhaps surprisingly, most of the supermarket and retail chains usually have their containers devanned in third party facilities prior to delivery to their distribution networks. Whilst some of this work can be carried out within the dock estate, the vast majority of this work will likely be done outside the dock area with many local organisations already involved in an area stretching from Sefton, and Kirkby through to Warrington and back towards Widnes and Speke. Invariably all this traffic is going to move by road as there is really no alternative so I'm afraid that if the region want's to benefit from the additional investment and job opportunities that the Liverpool2 development will bring, it will also have to accept that additional road capacity will be necessary.

Whether to the proposed new road is the best option is another matter, perhaps a partial cut and cover construction might have been another option to consider but it would have probably substantially increased the price. Perhaps one other disappointing aspect of the proposed scheme is that it does not involve the construction of a flyover at Switch Island to reduce the number of conflicting moves and thus standing traffic. Perhaps another day, decade or century for this?

Some great points made, I'm pretty sure that the sites former use as a tip would be problematic in terms of a tunnel, not sure if this would make it impossible but it would certainly increase the cost of building one.

Even without this issue a tunnel was never seriously considered as its a lot cheaper to just stick a road right through the middle of the park.

In terms of shifting the road to one side of the park, I would be against this personally as it would be placing the homes which line each side of the park into an even more dangerous environment in terms of the pollution the road is going to cause. Placing it on the Litherland side would be doubly devastating as this side of the park is bordered by the Leeds Liverpool Canal.

This is one of the more pleasant and well maintained stretches of the canal in this part of Liverpool and placing the road close to it would have a massive impact on the wildlife and anyone who enjoys this stretch of the canal would not only be able to hear the road but would be breathing in toxic fumes as well.

I will always be against this road but if it does go ahead the current proposed route through the middle of the park (below) would sadly be the best option.



Its bad enough that this would effectively destroy the park but it would at least offer some protection for the surrounding communities in terms of noise and air pollution.

I'll end with a few more pics of the park and canal

It's been a number of years now since the message first went out how the port would change Liverpool's fortunes.

2017, a business-benefiting bridge has been built in the south of the city, where in my opinion the position over tolls was rolled over on far too quickly, and the city still has no commitment to HS2/HS3. Are the ports owners campaigning for Liverpool to have either?

If infrastructure needs an upgrade in order to handle more port business, then it should be an opportunity to sort out the mess which is the dual carriageway slicing through Litherland. Sink it, cover it, and therefore allow the community above it to be repaired. Add to the city's green space, rather than reducing it.

Yes, that would cost more. So what?

I'm with Dan on this. When it comes to Liverpool it's always the bargain basement, and the needs of its people and place come at the bottom of the list. Those whose interests are served by the new road should get no assistance from the population unless they are willing to throw their lot in with the people on a compromise mutual interest. Which won't be the cheapest option. Business interests have had plenty of support over the past decade on the basis that it would be good for the city; I think it's about time the city at large saw some benefit coming back now.

Chris B said:

You'd like to think the one thing everyone could agree upon (besides Switch Island being some kind of Gordian nightmare) is that Switch Island needs a flyover, probably more than one actually. Think again -



Taken from the reader comments section of cbrd.co.uk, where Switch Island naturally has a place in their 'Bad Junctions' section - http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/57-58-59

As for the chances of a flyover actually happening, that same site sums it up nicely -

Click to expand...

As somebody who can remember the days before Switch Island grew to the monster it is today, I must admit I have a certain sympathy for that response. The sprawl we have today is purely a result of the 40 year delay the region suffered getting the Brooms Cross Road built, as in this period I think the junction has been changed at least two or three times. I suspect if the junction was redesigned to link both motorways to the new road by flyovers, the foot print of the junction could be drastically reduced, with the added benefit of reducing the traffic flow on the local road network.

Centurio said:

It's been a number of years now since the message first went out how the port would change Liverpool's fortunes.

2017, a business-benefiting bridge has been built in the south of the city, where in my opinion the position over tolls was rolled over on far too quickly, and the city still has no commitment to HS2/HS3. Are the ports owners campaigning for Liverpool to have either?

If infrastructure needs an upgrade in order to handle more port business, then it should be an opportunity to sort out the mess which is the dual carriageway slicing through Litherland. Sink it, cover it, and therefore allow the community above it to be repaired. Add to the city's green space, rather than reducing it.

Yes, that would cost more. So what?

I'm with Dan on this. When it comes to Liverpool it's always the bargain basement, and the needs of its people and place come at the bottom of the list. Those whose interests are served by the new road should get no assistance from the population unless they are willing to throw their lot in with the people on a compromise mutual interest. Which won't be the cheapest option. Business interests have had plenty of support over the past decade on the basis that it would be good for the city; I think it's about time the city at large saw some benefit coming back now.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember when the A562 was originally built back in the early 1960's the stretch near Ditton was built on what was almost a chemical tip. As anybody who has driven along this stretch over the years will know it is similar experience to driving on the M62 just to the east of the Sankey Bridge where subsidence is a particular problem. In order to prevent this sort of problem it might be as easy to remove the top surface which would have the benefit of reducing the noise and pollution levels, as well as the visual effect of the road on the remain parkland once trees etc have been planted.

The Option B selected as the preferred route is, according to the full announcement the more expensive option than Option A which was the upgrade of Church Road route, but I tend to agree, that the eventual solution needs to constructed to the same standard as those announced in the A14 upgrade which is costing £1.5 billion for seven miles which was announced, on the lst Sep 2017 on this link.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-road-upgrade-leads-the-way-on-environment