When will this madness end, don’t people realise that trucks are needed and crap like this affects deisel costs thus effecting more than their poxy village life.(which is a dump anyway)
Basicly they propose any case of what happened on the a66, your gonna have to go up to jct 44 and come back down.
Then there will be more complaints about the extra traffic heading to junction 44 
Well, I live in ■■■■■■■ , (Temple Sowerby)… And I drive artics… And I think it would be a good idea to downgrade that stretch of road… But build a new junction about 2 miles south of J44 to take the traffic.
Around 200 people packed into a public meeting at the Downagate Centre in Warwick Bridge and they are hoping that the road can be downgraded with heavy traffic diverted along the A689.
It was organised by councillor Nick Marriner, who represents people living in Wetheral, who said the alternative route was a much better option and a more affordable solution than building a new bypass.
He said: “It’s a vital local issue — we’ve been campaigning on this road since the 1960s.”
Mr Marriner said that he had been told by a Department for Transport civil engineer in 1989 that a bypass for Warwick Bridge had been proposed as early as 1975.
He added that there had been four fatalities in the past year. He said: “Warwick Bridge itself was built around 1850 to carry horses and carriages and it now has to carry 44-tonne lorries — it’s not fit for purpose.”
According to official figures around 12,000 trucks use the route every week and campaigners are hoping that the A69 can be ‘detrunked’ with the heavy traffic diverted along the A689.
Rory Stewart, the MP for Penrith and the Border, said he fully supported the idea. He added: “It has to be possible because we’ve got the A689. People get worried about detrunking roads nationally because you cut up the national road network.
“This is a unique case because we have an alternative route and the only downside is it adds an additional four miles to the journey.”
John Stevenson, Carlisle’s MP, said that a film from 23 years ago had shown similar problems but now the situation was worse.
He added: “Things have changed quite a bit. There’s more traffic and heavier traffic.”
Petitions are being organised locally in a number of villages including Warwick Bridge, Great Corby, Warwick on Eden, Wetherall, Scotby and Aglionby.
Organisers are aiming to collect at least 2,000 signatures between now and the end of January.
Published by newsandstar.co.uk
It’s only 4 miles
It’ll never happen, why, because Mr Stobbie won’t want extra traffic going past his tinpot airport 
The A689 is heavin at the gunnels anyway with the scotch/geordie traffic what difference does a few more lorries make, more the merrier.
I dont see a problew de-trunking it, you’ll still be able to use it but now they will be allowed to stick in more traffic calming as it isn’t a trunk route anymore and i doubt 12,000 lorries use that stretch of road a week maybe 12,000 use the A689 but not the warwick stretch.
With Diesel costs going through the roof I wonder if these 200 people wouldn’t mind paying the extra diesel cost at around £6 for the extra gallon of diesel or whatever the mileage to the hauliers for their diversions ? Not to mention the extra emissions that will be produced. Tut tut
Ive done some maths:
12000 trucks a week x2 there and back =
96000 miles a week extra on the journey.
My 18t Daf averaged 24 l/100km today, which works out as 11.77 mpg
That means, if every truck did the same as me, which it wont because I drive a little one, just image what a 44t ScannyV8 would do! you are looking at 37,079 litres of diesel a week to cover the extra distance.
Based on the AAs latest data, you are looking at 144.8p per litre.
That works out at £53,691 per week or £2,791,932 per year extra fuel cost to the industry.
If someone would like to give me accurate average l/100 km for an artic running at average weight, I would be happy to re-calculate.
If the bridge is a genuine concern for past and potential accidents, put traffic lights on it end of, it will be a lot safer, and much cheaper than a by pass, but we all know it’s just an excuse by nimbys to get rid of trucks out of their village.
happysack:
Then there will be more complaints about the extra traffic heading to junction 44
Junction 44 cause now there still talking about it
merc0447:
I dont see a problew de-trunking it, you’ll still be able to use
I doubt it because as soon as it is ‘de-trunked’ the road becomes the responsibility of the local council rather than the Highways Agency, as it is now.
That will mean the local yokels will put pressure on their local councillors to implement a weight limit as they always do in these circumstances.
The general public seem to forget that the trunk road network was originally built for the fast efficient movement of freight around the country the same reason as to why our motorway network was built.
All the anti lorry brigade numpties need a history lesson and a reality check!!
nsmith1180:
If someone would like to give me accurate average l/100 km for an artic running at average weight, I would be happy to re-calculate.
i average 32 l/ 100 clicks average weights RAF! 
XF 105 
some light loads UPTO and across some heavy!
Just clocked it on google maps. I set it from J43 to the Intersection of the A69/A689. Old way was 6.8 and up to J44 was 12.7. So 4 miles my arse, more like 6. So that calculation above of £50k in fuel can be upped to at least £75k.
Kerbdog:
With Diesel costs going through the roof I wonder if these 200 people wouldn’t mind paying the extra diesel cost at around £6 for the extra gallon of diesel or whatever the mileage to the hauliers for their diversions ? Not to mention the extra emissions that will be produced. Tut tut
Why would the 200 people pay anything.they do not care in the slightest how much the haulage companys pay in fuel.