04.08.05: TSLM AND GERALDINE SMITH WORK TOGETHER TO DEFEAT NORTHERN ROUTE.
TSLM and MP Geraldine Smith are in agreement that the Northern route plan is a bad idea for the district and should be thrown out. There is also agreement that we must all work together on alternatives to road building; even though Geraldine supports the building of the Blue route to the south of the River Lune.
These were the main points that came out of a meeting at the Vale of Lune Rugby Club on Tuesday 2nd August.
“TSLM is in agreement with Geraldine and most other people in the area that the Northern route is a very bad choice and not the answer to our congestion problems” said David Gate, Chair of TSLM. “Geraldine has her own ideas about the solution to the traffic gridlock but she does agree with us that more non road building ideas should be developed for the area. TSLM says that these solutions should be implemented before anymore destructive roads are considered.”
|
Geraldine Smith said “I believe that the solution to the district’s transport problems require an integrated approach including a motorway link road to the south and also improvements to public transport. I will be happy to work with any group/organisation/political party to achieve all or part of these aims.”
TSLM believes that by working with our MP and others in the community, we can put a stop to the Northern route and get the focus back on effective transport solutions that we can all afford. TSLM gave Geraldine a letter setting out their views (see below) together with a working dossier setting out their ideas for alternative transport solutions (which will be published on the website as soon as it is finalised).
TSLM
Letter to Geraldine Smith MP, 2nd August 2005:
Heysham Port M6 Link-Proposed Northern route.
Dear Ms Smith,
Thank you for agreeing to meet with us to discuss opposition to the Northern route and alternative solutions to the traffic problems in our district.
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) is a group of several hundred people from the area who are opposed to the building of the Northern route for a variety of reasons that we would like to explain to you. TSLM is also associated with several organisations who share our concerns, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party. Our objective is to stop the building of the Northern route and to promote alternatives, which are less destructive, more effective and cheaper than road building. For that reason we do not support the building of any of the other two suggested road alternatives.
We know that there is a great deal of opposition to the road proposal in the district and that this opposition extends far beyond TSLM and its supporters. Unfortunately Lancashire County Council (LCC) misjudged public opinion when their Cabinet rushed through the decision to proceed with the Northern route on 2nd September 2004. They did not stop to undertake a proper public consultation and simply quoted from a MORI poll, which they had commissioned in 2001.
LCC were selective in the facts that they drew from the poll. The poll suggested that 16% of people, at that time, strongly supported the building of the Northern route and that 28% of those polled “tended” to support the route. LCC ignored the fact that the same poll showed that only 15% of people wanted road building as the main local transport priority and as many as 42% people wanted to improve public transport and other alternatives to the car.
71% of people in the poll wanted an end to the areas congestion problems as the main transport priority. In 2005 people can now see that the Northern route is not designed to deal with the in town congestion. Indeed Councillor Tony Martin, who is in charge of this project, admitted at LCCs 1st July Cabinet meeting, that the Northern route was not an inner Lancaster relief road. The reality is that the road does not meet the needs and wishes of local people.
TSLM undertook exit polls after LCCs public exhibitions and its own “alternative exhibition”, our poll shows that public support for the Northern route has slumped, only 10% of the attendees wanted a Link road. 53% wanted alternatives to compare to the road and 29% wanted alternative solutions to road building. Had LCC consulted the public in 2004 this would have become apparent much sooner and time and money would not have been wasted.
LCC have not undertaken a public consultation about the present plans. They held public exhibitions in May 2005, which they specifically said, were not consultations. They are even making changes to those plans, they say in response to public concerns raised at their exhibitions. The only consultation they promise will be after the publication of the planning application in December. What is the point of consultation after the plans are finalised?
We now have the prospect of a massive, destructive and intrusive dual carriageway, which is not a congestion relief road, only a route to Heysham Port from the M6 at Halton. The port traffic is only 2% of the volume of traffic in the area, the vast majority of the traffic (80%) is moving in and between Lancaster and Morecambe, still nothing has been done to address the issue.
Everyone can now see that the effect of the Northern route on the congestion is minimal, but the damage to our communities and to our environment would be massive and unacceptable. 70ha of our green fields to the north of the towns would be given over to concrete and tarmac with the loss of trees, wildlife and amenity. The elevated road would split Torrisholme in two. The road would run within 200m of 1,074 homes and thousands of people would suffer noise, light and exhaust pollution, and for what? The congestion problem would not have been alleviated.
Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence that the Northern route would regenerate the local economy. We welcome inward investment, but we would caution that new roads can suck investment out of an area as well as bring it in. This was the view of the Government Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA 1999). Indeed LCCs decision not to have a second bridge to the Luneside East development undermines the economic argument. That decision is clearly contrary to the wishes of Lancaster City Council who made its acceptance of the Northern route proposal conditional on the Luneside bridge being built.
The plans to build this road are contrary to the Governments thinking: Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for transport recently said “we cannot build our way out of our present problems.” The transport white paper (1998) said “since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built.”
TSLM believes that there are many alternatives that are less damaging and cheaper to implement. We know that the Department of Transport prefers this kind of approach, as they stated in their recent “Smarter Choices” package for local authorities. We are also encouraged by the fact that Lancashire County Council promotes alternative ideas in its latest Draft Local Plan, but why have they not applied them to Lancaster and Morecambe?
The present plans for the Northern route are so flawed and controversial that they merit a public inquiry now.The Northern route scheme is deeply unpopular, inefficient, expensive and destructive and we urgently need your help to bring about a reconsideration. We all want a resolution to our traffic problems but at a financial and environmental cost that we can all afford.
Yours sincerely,
TSLM