Warrington-Worldwide.co.uk incorporates the Village Life, Culcheth Life, Frodsham Life & Lymm Life magazines.


Council rolls out 20mph speed limts


A SERIES of 20mph speed limits is being expanded across Warrington to make the town safer and improve the quality of life for residents.
The limits will be on residential roads, with the exception of some key routes.
The scheme aims to give residents greater ownership of streets and public spaces. It also aims to encourage healthier forms of transport such as cycling and walking, and reduce the number and severity of collisions.
A pilot scheme ran for 18 months in three areas of the town and allowed the council to assess what type of roads were suitable for the limit. It will now expand on these and introduce 20mph speed limits across Warrington in phases over the next three years.
Cllr Linda Dirir, (pictured) executive board member for highways, transportation and climate change, said: “This new scheme will have huge benefits for the town and we hope everybody will get behind it.
“Not only does it mean increased safety for road users and residents, but by encouraging walking or cycling, people can also enjoy the health and wellbeing benefits.”
The existing 20 mph speed limit areas are the Town Centre, Orford and Great Sankey.

The areas for the first phase roll out are:

Dallam – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Sankey Brook, Cromwell Avenue (A574), Winwick Road (A49), Kerfoot Street, Folly Lane, Lovely Lane

Orford Park – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Longford Street, Orford Lane, Marsh House Lane, Padgate Lane, Orford Road (A50), Hilden Place (A50), Orford Green (A50), Long Lane (A50) Winwick Road (A49)

Warrington Hospital – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Priestly Street (A57), Froghall Lane (A57), Midland Way (A57), Winwick Street, Pinners Brow, Winwick Road (A49), Kerfoot Street, Folly Lane, Lovely Lane, Sankey Green (A57).

Orford Lane – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Winwick Road (A49), Lythgoes Lane (A49), Cockhedge Green (A57), Manchester Road (A57), Padgate Lane, Marsh House Lane, Orford Lane, Longford Street.

Peace Centre – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Sankey Way (A57), Cromwell Avenue (A574), Trans-Pennine Route Railway, Lovely Lane.

Milner Street – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not including Sankey Way (A5061), Liverpool Road (A5061), Crosfield Street, Froghall Lane (A57), Priestly Street (A57), Sankey Green (A57).

Cockhedge Centre – residential roads within the boundaries of, but not necessarily including Winwick Street, Scotland Road, Academy Street, Mersey Street (A49), Fennel Street (A49), Brick Street (A49), Cockhedge Green (A49), Midland Way (A57).
More information and plans of the areas can be seen on the website at: www.warrington.gov.uk/20mph


About Author

Experienced journalist for more than 35 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with six in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.


  1. What a total waste of money and much against the wishes of residents! Nationally there is no evidence that reducing the speed limit to 20mph does make roads safer. This expenditure at a time when the Council is broke! This Exec Board Member seems to have no regard for anything that residents have to say. A more listening Council would be more effective and, perhaps, cost us less.

  2. I would like to thank the council for introducing this important initiative. But not for myself. I would like to do so on behalf of the un-named child who will not be killed or seriously injured on its street because a car was able to stop in time. On behalf of the child and parent who now feels it safer to walk or cycle to school. On behalf of the elderly who will feel comfortable walking to and around the local shops for a few more years. On behalf of the disabled who will feel less vulnerable. On behalf of the asthmatic who if we can reduce the car usage and constant acceleration on our our roads enjoy better health.

    But most of all I would like to thank the people of Warrington who recognise that driving faster in our residential streets makes little difference to journey times yet can make a big difference to the liveability of our town. We can all make our places better places to be.

    Our twin town of Hilden has a 30kph (18.5mph) limit on all of its residential roads and Warrington is joined by Liverpool, Lancashire, Wigan, Wirral, Oxford, Cambridge, York, Brighton & Hove, Portsmouth, Bristol, Edinburgh, York, Middlesbrough, Darlington, Islington, Hackney and Camden in implementing 20mph limits for residential roads.

    Such an initiative is hardly now controversial or radical, but it will make Warrington a better place to live.

  3. Didnt the recent map published on the BBC website show that there had been no fatalities in 11 years on any of the referred to roads in Warrington. Indeed didnt all the fatalities occur on roads specifically excluded from this project? In which case isnt it a bit disingenuos to suggest this will prevent such fatalities when there is no evidence of the same?

  4. Waste of money, just to appease the Lycra brigade. i live in a 20mph zone and it doesn’t make drivers obey the limit. And how can it possibly be monitored? Police numbers are being reduced and drivers will just ignore the signs, the same as they do with 30 and 40 signs.

    Perhaps the money would be better spent on improving traffic flow and get rid of people’s frustrations. Time these councillor’s did a proper job and stopped wasting our money, especially with the Government cutbacks.

  5. Rod. That’s an impassioned appeal. But there’s no basis for it. What is really needed is for all road users – including cyclists – to stop behaving as if they are the only people with a right to be on the roads. Or, in the case of some cyclists, on the pavements or wherever they damn well please. I cannot see that the sorts of idiots who already far exceed a 30mph limit will take any more notice of a 20. Nor can I see the police diverting resources away from main roads to residential streets.

    However, I’d be happy to buy your argument if you tell me what the targets for reductions in road accidents, injuries and deaths are. How will you measure success?

  6. PS. I believe the police are not supportive of this campaign and that WBT have claimed that it will increase rather than decrease pollution. Or am I mistaken?

  7. 20 mph limits are a good idea on residential streets that are not main routes – as is reinstating the 60 mph limit on some areas which have been reduced to 50 mph – including stretches of Birchwood Way and Birchwood park Avenue

  8. the average speed around warrington can be no more than 18mph – does this also mean that Cllr Dirir will not be using her Jag/Volvo to help the climate around the town – lead by .example

  9. Fatal and serious accidents actually increased in Portsmouth after the introduction of the 20mph limit…. to quote their local website…….”THERE have been calls for a rethink of Portsmouth’s 20mph zones after figures showed a big jump in the number of serious injuries……..The government’s Department for Transport has released data on the number of people killed or seriously hurt which shows a 57 per cent increase last year from 2010……..It reveals the city had the second largest rise of any in the UK – behind only St Helens which showed a jump of 62 per cent”…….. so what’s next….10mph????

  10. I see figures just released by the DpT show a substantial rise in casualties in 20mph zones around the country; with Portsmouth and York both showing rises (They were two of the first places to introduce these schemes I believe)….. so in Warrington we are spending £750,000 on this and can look forward to an increase too?…..

  11. The Lib Dems could do yourselves a service by high lighting the service funding which is being diverted in to this initiative. earlier reports said that Dirir meant to get the funding from within the tranport budget. Which roads, hegerows green spaces etc are being deprived to fund this folly.

  12. Those blaming Portsmouth’s increase in road casualties on 20mph limits have not demonstrated any causality between Portsmouth’s 20mph limit implementation in 2008 and their 2011 casualty figures. In particular :-

    1) There is no explanation as to why 20mph limits being implemented in 2008 should lead to a delayed increase in casualties in 2011.

    2) There is no explanation as to why other towns such as St Helens had higher increases in KSI than Portsmouth yet have not implemented wide area 20mph limits like Portsmouth.

    3) There is no breakdown of the KSI figures to show indicate that the any growth was on specific speed limited roads.

    Without a detailed analysis then such knee-jerk reaction brings little useful information.

    Actually York is about to start its widespread roll-out of its 20mph limits. So any variations between its 2010 and 2011 statistics are not really of any consequence.

    Meanwhile MPs and DfT are all supporting wide-area 20mph limits and towns as diverse as Liverpool, Bristol, Cambridge, Warrington, and many more in the UK, and even New York, are moving forward with wide-area 20mph limits for residential streets.

    Warrington has already decided to make its place a “better place to be”. I am sure that the “losers” in that debate will keep on “knee-jerking” but this should not distract us from progressing this important scheme that will bring so many benefits to our communities.

  13. Rod. You are simply ignoring data that doesn’t support your argument. I don’t doubt that you are sincere, but you need to take a more balanced view. The people don’t want this. The police don’t want this. The local public transport company doesn’t want this. There is no evidence at all it will achieve what you would like. There are no clear objectives or targets. And it’s expensive. For a fraction of what the council is spending on this, it could preserve the threatened school bus service. Wouldn’t that be better?

  14. No. I ignore “opinion” which does not support the argument and which does not have any relevance. The police are happy with 20mph for residential roads, the bus companies are happy with 20mph for residential roads, The public (well 73% of them and growing) want 20mph for residential roads. And the objectives are to create better places to walk, talk, cycle, shop, etc and is one of the most cost effective safety implemenation there is. Only negative is that some people want to drive as fast as possible between stops so that they can…..wait longer at the stops. Maybe you can help school children walk or cycle to school by encouraging driving at a pace that enable them to feel comfortable walking or cycling. That wouldn’t cost anything at all.

Leave A Comment