Since writing to the councillors and officers I have heard that the council will be returning to this in May, when a key member of staff is expected to return from sick leave, and that they intend to consult local residents before implementing a solution.

A meeting is being arranged with someone from the council to visit the bridge and discuss the options.

Ian

I commute to Eastleigh over the bridge every weekday.

I think that the lights have actually improved traffic flow at peak times but off peak they can cause unnecessary waiting.

Until the structural weakness is dealt with there will have to be lights simply because unlike previously when you could approach the bridge and see if anything was coming before you committed to entering the single track part, now you can't see. This does mean that it is chaos when the lights are out and people try to guess whether anything is coming!

I think that more should be done to stop heavy lorries - out of area lorry drivers see the 6'6" restriction and think they'll get away with going through and don't realise the tightness of the bend. A notice saying something like "Tight Bend Ahead. Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles" would be useful.

I have just taken Graham Muir, from the city council, over the bridge on foot and explained the situation to him. As it happenned while were there we had cars vans cyclists, babes in prams, a man walking his dog and a primary school crocodile all use the bridge!

His role is to gather informatuion and make a report to Graham Redman (Traffic Engineer in Transport Engineering) who will evgentually draw up the proposed solution.

This will go out on the lamp posts and in the Echo.

If there are no objections then that's what will be done.

So, I will be in touch with Graham R' in due course.

There appears to be some sympathy for a more effective width restriction.

Ian

I agree with Ian Thomas on the many points he has raised and for the counter arguments of concluding that the bridges best option is to return to its original format with the added safety gaurds put in place - restrict oversized vehicles - put up road signing to indicate this - protect walkers as much as is practicable so that a balance for all can be met. :p Joe Coghe

As a woman who drives across Woodmill everyday - usually alone or with small children - I have to say that I would hate to return to the former situation of an uncontrolled crossing at Woodmill. Although I agree with you absolutely that traffic flows freely when car drivers cross 3 or 4 at a time and those travelling east give way at the mid-point, I have noticed increasing levels of bullying in recent years and I had come to dread my journey home and would sometimes pass on Cobden Bridge simply in order to avoid the regular confrontations and intimidation. Most people who use the crossing regularly recognise that by exercising a little restraint and common-sense the system works very well for everybody - but it only takes one selfish idiot to bring the road to a complete halt. I loved the few weeks we have had in the past couple of years when the road has been closed completely, even though it added time onto my daily commute - the park was quiet and safe for children, the mill and the river were beautiful and it put an end to the drivers who speed down Manor Farm Road (past the infant school!) when there is a hold-up at Cobden Bridge. A Council which was serious about discouraging vehicle use would close Woodmill and create a cycle/pedestrian greenway the length of the river - a functional access route from homes into the city instead of the silly children's bike/dog walker situation which was set up in Riverside Park last year.

Woodmill has always been a bottleneck, but as a Manor Farm Road resident I would prefer it to stay as it is... with the lights. I really can't see people going back to being courteous and allowing 3/4 cars each way at a time. However, as I can see the traffic from my front room and regularly watch oversize vehicles trying to go down there, including fire engines, removal lorries and more! Often having to reverse all the way back. I do think something needs to be done to control them.
I would suggest having a weight limit (2.5 tons) to protect the bridge as well as the width limit. I would also consider a 20 mph speed limit with a sign similar to further up Woodmill Lane to protect the pedestrians bridge users as well as improving the barriers. Hopefully this would help residents who live on the other side of the bridge too...null

Isn't that typical of the Council's idea of consultation? Put up a few tiny notices on lamposts where no driver can read them - hold your breath, hope no-one sees them then steam ahead. That's about on a par with the really widespread consultation they carried out (not) for those two insane roundabouts at the end of Manor Farm Road.

Of course when I say "steam ahead" I am misrepresenting the situation somewhat as that implied that the Council has some capacity for dynamic action. Two years we have been waiting for that bridge to be repaired and only now are they looking at preparing a plan...

As a resident of Woodmill Lane (311 - 7 house up from the bridge) I would love to see Woodmill Closed full stop. Obviously this won't happen, and I appreaciate the problems it would cause in numerous areas. However one suggestion would be to have more"intelligent2 traffic lights.
It's obvious that in the mornings all the traffic build up is coming from the Hop-in to wessex lane direction, and in the evening rush hour the opposite way. Maybe a good idea would be to have the lights on timers so the traffic can clear quicker depending in which way the build up is coming from. These light also need to be working in conjunction with the main cross roads at new road.
The lights should also have sensors so at evenings / late nights they can sense if no traffic is comming the opposite direction and change to green. A big problem at the minute that we get the "loud" car sterio's at have to sit at a red light with no traffic coming in the opposite direction, wkaing all the local residents up with thier booming car sterio's.
the last thing to do would be to make from Wessex Lane to where the pitch and put entrance a 20mph speed limit, with cameras that take an average speed, this prevent drivers simply slowing down if we had normal speed cameras.

Steve, we'll vote total closure if you will!

Perhaps the removal of the toll at the Itchen Bridge would relieve the congestion somewhat.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Woodmill Cottage on the Bridge)
We are almost at our wit’s end here is Woodmill Cottage with the ongoing saga about the ‘temporary’ traffic lights on the bridge. In addition to all the dangers associated with vehicles racing to and from the bridge to beat the lights, it is the late night in-car entertainment which plagues us most. As a result of a number of letters and phone calls with a Mr Graham Redman at transport engineering, we have been assured that a decision on the future is immanent. The options seem to be: 1) make the lights permanent (terrible); 2) return to the old system (better); 3) close the bridge to traffic (great). Any solution that might satisfy the residence and the drivers is out of the question because of cost (to quote: the council is broke). So the burning question is when will the decision come? First we were told that there would be a consolation with residence and drivers in September. However there was some internal ‘re-organisation in transport engineering and things got delayed! Then it was going to happen by the end of November (Wrong). And the latest is January---we will see!
The other interesting news (to me anyway) from Graham Redman was the reason the lights were introduced in the first place. I thought it was because the road on the Hop Inn side of the Woodmill was collapsing and would only take single lane traffic. Not so! The only problem with this stretch of the road is the hand railings along the river which are unsafe and need securing to the walk way in a new concrete ‘edging’. Apparently, the two(ish)-year delay is because the council doesn’t know who to ask at the environment agency to get permission to do the work and they might need to get in the water. So the outcome, it would appear, is that we have had two years of temporary lights simply because the council didn’t know who to ask for permission to do the work! Great. Call me old fashion if you must, but I find it puzzling that they were able to narrow the road (with railings) on the sharp bend immediately outside the Canoe Office during this period. So why couldn’t they simply carry on putting railings all along the river if that is what was required? Perhaps the money ran out.
Well residence--imagine what it would be like if the Council didn’t work for us!

I am hoping to film some footage about the Woodmill consultation over the next 6 days for a university project.
Please email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it if you'd be willing to talk to me over the next few days about your views on the proposals and how they could effect you.

Ian Thomas- It would be fantastic if you could contact me too.

Many thanks.

Environment Agency
Subsequent to a meeting between officers of the Council (including Graham Redman), and of the Environment Agency, and the Environment Agency's consultants in August last year, I spoke to Karen McHugh (Asset Systems Management Officer - Flood Defence at the Environment Agency) who was also present at the meeting.

She was able to confirm that the Environment Agency's plans for the river will not require any changes to the structure of the bridge. She wrote "Our department would be the one to work with highways on their proposals - my boss is Mike Mullins who sees no reason why the bridge should not be repaired."

...and also "The Agency would not stand in the way to any essential repairs that highways need to make."

This was back in August 2006. So how anyone with any knowledge of matter can say that the Environment Agency is a block on the works being completed is quite beyond me.

Consultation
I spoke to Graham Redman a month or so ago, but he could only tell me that no decision can be made until the after consultation is concluded, and that the consultation is still yet to happen because they/he were not sure how best to do it!

I recall another conversation with Graham way back in late 2005 about this very matter. Even then we were discussing which types of consultation might be used: road-side interviews, mail-outs, local paper etc etc. I am astonished that over a year later this remains unresolved, and that indecision over conducting such a relatively straightforward public consultation is being presented as a legitimate reason for continued delay.


Ian Thomas

I use the bridge daily to go to work in chandlers ford. To go around the long way after dropping my children at BP junior school in the mornings would be and was a real head ache last year when the bridge was temporaily closed. The poor triangle was bursting at its seams with traffice. There's no easy solution, but I vote, spend our council tax wisely, mend woodmill bridge. I'd like to see permanent lights, people are always in a rush and many lack the courtisy of giving way to others on the 3 in 3 out old policy. Someone please be decisive and take action soon!

I use the bridge several times a day and live in the local area. It is strikes me that there is a lot of difference of opinion and the council will clearly not be able to please everyone.

Whilst the current solution is not ideal (nor are the proposed ones) it is a reasonable and thought out solution given the constraints and problems surrounding the issue. It has not been the speediest of events, but what is when you need to consult several agencies, specialists and be part of a democracy. I think the council should be applauded for their attempts to get us to feedback our points of view (email, persons hading out leaflets to bridge users and direct mailings to local streets) and that they are not rushing into hasty and inappropriate decisions.

The old system worked perfectly well unless you are a nervous driver, spectacularly impatient or one or two people were silly and blocked it up (rare). Many of the issues would be improved by better signage, as commented by other members of the site.

The lights actually make things quicker at certain times of day and slower at others and with better timings or a part-time basis this could be improved more.

I rarely see persons jump a red light and when your light is green and there are still cars crossing this is usually because the traffic goes reasonably slowly through the narrow section. The shorter timing than is sometimes needed means less wasted time when the bridge is quieter. Please do not assume that traffic coming your way has jumped the lights because yours is green- this is often not the case.

Personally I would prefer the bridge not to close as I think it adds to problems at the triangle and that speed of traffic should be modified. Let us hope that whatever the final decision is is as sensible and suitable as possible and congratulate the council if it is.

Helen is right when she says that it has not been the speediest of events and I applaud her generosity of spirit, but feel compelled to point out that job has always been a road repair, plain and simple.

From the summer of 2004 when the road-width was reduced and the 'temporary' lights installed I was very understanding of the lack of progress for about a year, and tolerated the polite indifference of council officers.

Over the subsequent two years patience has worn rather thin. I happen to know a person in the Environment Agency with responsibility for the river above Woodmill and there was no reason for delay from the EA's point of view, despite this still being used as an excuse several months after the meeting where the EA's involvement was clarified.

A public consultation was discussed in early 2005, yet there is no explanation as to why it has taken another 24 months (that's nearly 100 weeks) to undertake a badly flawed exercise.

So long as there are traffic lights there will be long queues of stationary traffic, with cars and vans continuing to speed over the bridge putting pedestrians, parents with buggies, and cyclists at considerable risk of being struck by passing wing mirrors.

I will put my cards on the table, making the lights permanent will entrench dangerous driving over the bridge, whereas re-establishing the original road-layout will reduce speeds over the bridge back down to around 15-20mph, as there will be little opportunity to accelerate over the bridge. It will also maximise traffic flow. As humans, we are far more adaptable than the best lights computer. Have we become so drone-like that we crave control even over negotiating a small bridge?

I have heard from an officer in Highways that the real reason this has taken so long is that no-one wants to take responsibility and spend money to fix the road. So, the decision gets put off officers move on to other jobs, and the de-facto situation of the bridge being reduced to a single lane with lights becomes the accepted norm. This way the council ignores the cost of putting the road back the way it was and quietly slips another set of traffic lights in, to no-one's great surprise.

But who will take responsibility if someone gets killed or seriously injured by the wing mirror of a van speeding over the bridge, as happened in Portsword not so long ago?

The overriding criteria here must be the safety of the public, not the perceived convenience of drivers. If it is not, then the council will be in breach of its public duty of care.

I know it means more public money, but would it not be feaseable to have somewhere up or down the river in respect to Woodmill bridge a foot-bridge and cycling bridge (shall we call it the Millenium Bridge of the Itchen :-). I just think it would make miracles in terms of making cyclists, kids and walkers safer and far from cars and it would leave more room for cars to use the actual bridge.

As people are no doubt aware, work has finally commenced on repairs to the bridge. Hooray!

The Woodmill Action Group successfully pressed the Council to re-consider the decision made by Cllr Dick (con) in November, to install permanent traffic lights on the bridge.

An amendment was passed at the full council meeting last Wednesday to refer the decision back to the cabinet following trials and further consultation.

This means that the necessary repairs will be completed and that any further expenditure to install lights will have to be justified from the results of trails. It is my contention that these trials, with and without lights, will reveal that there will be no net benefit from installing lights, at an initial capital cost of over £100,000, plus annual running costs. Public funds will be much better deployed in effective actions, such as traffic calming measures outside Southampton's primary schools.

There is evidence that over the last twenty years, whilst the amount of traffic in Southampton has grown steadily, the number of vehicles crossing the bridge has remained constant with or without lights. This is simply because the capacity of the bridge is limited by the single track section.

Installing lights will not increase the traffic flow or increase public safety, as publicly admitted by Cllr Dick at a hastily convened and heated public meeting at Woodmill in November.

The new leader of the council, June Bridle wrote this week to a resident, "As someone who was born and raised in Bitterne Park, albeit many years ago, I fully understand your reasoning but I also think the lights unnecessarily alter what is an historic part of our city, with all its unusual quirks, especially when there is no real need." and MP John Denham also commented that he "is not
convinced that the proposed scheme is necessary or a good use of public money. "

The repairs to Woodmill bridge have been the longest running road-works in Southampton. It has been over three years since this matter first surfaced. It is now very clear that the procrastination and badly flawed consultation process has resulted in an irrational decision that represents a waste of public money.

I am hopeful that common sense shall prevail and that this charming and unique part of Southampton will continue to be managed in a manner that benefits all the people who use it.


Ian Thomas

As a regular user of that bridge, 2 mornings and 2 afternoons a week i personally think that this bridge would benifit from permentant light fixtures at either end.

If there's not room for 2 cars to pass any where on the bridge (without using the area of drive for woodmill outdoor activity center) then at rush hour lights will be nescecary. Every morning, whether im going at 7:45 or 8:45 there is a long que either end of the bridge, without lights this junction would become extremly messy and potentialy hazardous for any users of the bridge.

Also, in response to those who dont want this historical part of the city altered, i am pretty sure that permenant lights will look alot better than the temporary lights that are currently in place.

Lights are a good idea. They cannot close the bridge to traffic completely, that would be ridiculous. I was not driving until after the temporary lights went in so I cannot comment on what the system was like before, but I do know that when the bridge is closed it causes absolute mayhem everywhere else in Bitterne Park. I am getting fed up of not being able to get off my own drive in st catherines because of all the cars trying to get down to the triangle. Some people eventually are nice enough to let me pull out of my drive, but most are so fed up of the traffic too that they look at me and carry on! It is a nightmare situation when the bridge is closed. For goodness sakes, just either leave those temp lights in or put some new ones in. Or even get rid of the lights, they just need to do it quick!