As many motorists will have noticed the street lights on a stretch of the A538, heading towards Wilmslow, have not been working for some time.
We understand that most of the new LED street lights on Altrincham Road have been off since the end of summer, from the roundabout just after the second runway tunnel up to the next roundabout.
One local resident contacted wilmslow.co.uk saying it "All seems very odd after the concerns from three years ago" when the street lights along the A538, heading towards the airport tunnels, were switched off as part of the council's street lighting carbon reduction scheme - in an effort to slash carbon emissions, cut down on light pollution and save money.
However, the Council reviewed their decision and turned the street lighting back on after sports clubs and local residents raised concerns about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Having contacted the Council about the situation we can now confirm that it will be rectified in the next couple of weeks and the lights will be back on.
A spokesman for Cheshire East Council, said: "The power supply to the street lights connecting two roundabouts on Altrincham Road in Wilmslow was recently damaged by a collision."
"We are working to repair this stretch of the A538 and expect this work to be completed within a fortnight.
"We thank the public for their patience and will have the new LED lights functioning normally as soon as possible."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Why has the planned dual-carriageway road from the M56, thro' the tunnels to the "Valley Lodge" roundabout never been implemented? The wide cutting was made when the first tunnel was built.
Whilst the temporary lights at the DHL / Amazon interchange are only there to get people used to the mayhem that's yet to come, the longstanding problem has been caused by arrogant and ignorant drivers overtaking through the tunnels so that they can "merge" at the front of the queue rather than (more courteously) at the back of it.
The queue develops due to the kerfuffle as the two lanes become one where the - "oh no you're not" / "oh yes I am" argument develops - often with a little straw-bonneted cherub sitting angelically in the back whilst mummy lets rip a very colourful diatribe against those who understand "rights of way" better than she does.
Those of us who have used the road for years will remember the good old days when the Local Authority had sufficient funds to clean and paint the tunnels - the work used to involve closing one carriageway whilst work was carried out on the other. The traffic moved through beautifully, without skipping a beat!
The traffic at the new, huge industrial site (built on a farm and allowed by GMC on land conned out of the old Cheshire Council) could easily have been dealt with by widening the access road to the westbound side of the M56 and accessing the site from there. To easy I suspect.
This is not what I observed some years ago when tailbacks though the tunnel (there was only one then) resulted in some traffic merging early, leaving the other (outside) lane empty for overtakers to zoom past the queue to the front where the queuers would try to prevent them 'pushing in'. Some lorries even inched along in the outside lane at the same speed as the inside 'queuing' lane preventing any traffic from using that lane (until the lorry itself merged, of course). This is deliberate obstruction and as such is an offence.
I think the Highway Code's advice is far more sensible than that petulant and childish behavior I observed.
Rule 288 of the Highway code states "Do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
But we don't really need the Highway Code to tell us that it's wrong do we? If you're stood in a queue at the Sainsburys check-out and someone just pushes past you to get to the front
I'm guessing that you'd have a word.
The equivalent scenario is two parallel queues at Sainsburys for one check out till, and the queues merging equally and alternately on reaching the till.
That's what the highway code advises when two traffic queues merge when a lane is closed or two lanes become one.
I think it's sensible and civilised advice. Switching lanes will give no advantage (both lanes are full up to the point of merging). And there's no pushing in either as both queues can merge alternately at the point of reduction to one lane.
Merging before the two lanes become one leaves less traffic in the outer lane, and generates opportunities for overtakers to pass the standing traffic and push in at the front which understandably raises the blood pressure of those who have been overtaken.
I take it that is why the Highway Code does not advise early merging, but does advise alternate merging at the point of lane closure or singling.
The problem is one of drivers pulling out to overtake the line of vehicles politely queuing in the inside lane - in other words "queue jumping."
It would be good if CEC could provide clarification as to whether the lamp posts will be reinstated. The new LED lights fitted are far more efficient than the previous generation of lights. For me, therefore, the safety arguments for having lighting surpass any energy-saving rationale for non-provision.
If both lanes were in full use up to the point of merge (as the Highway Code advises and as I have repeated here several times) then 'queue jumping' would not be an option as the queues would fully occupy both the inside and the outside lanes, and both would proceed in parallel at the same speed until they alternately merge at the point of road narrowing.
No need for any raising of blood pressure.
That is precisely why the Highway Code's advice makes sense.
The two airport tunnels have a joint length of approx. half a mile.
There are rarely two half miles lanes of traffic converging on the point at which the two lanes become one.
What actually happens is that traffic starts to queue in the inside lane and other drivers pull out of that lane to overtake and "merge" at the front of the queue - in direct contravention of what the Highway Code sensibly advises.
Let's not waste any more time on this. I do not overtake standing traffic to get to the front, you (on the other hand) clearly do.
I conclude you are simply arguing for the sake of it.
For you, there's an excellent Monty Python sketch I can recommend.....
Oh, and the Highway Code as well, of course. Buy a copy.
Out.