13.4.06: TSLM takes roads debate to the top
TSLM have commissioned a leading transport planning expert to analyse the council's case for the road. His report has been sent to Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, and his top level civil servants, ahead of a decision expected in May. The report has also been circulated to the Treasury and the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs.
The report concluded that –
The road would not meet its objectives:
- It would not reduce congestion: on many roads there is little reduction, on the most congested routes there is not enough reduction to make much difference, and induced traffic would quickly erode any temporary relief.
- It does not create worthwhile opportunities to improve provision for walking, cycling and public transport. The opportunities are either already there or not possible even with the new road. The only tangible new provision, for a footway/ cycleway along the new road, is unattractive and would not be well used.
- Regeneration benefits are at best unproven, and at worst illusory
- Faster journey times to the Port of Heysham: of the four overall objectives, this is the only one which the proposal partially satisfies, but it benefits only 2.5% of traffic on the network.
The scheme fails to follow government guidance:
- Government guidance on the appraisal process is ignored. There is a complete absence of real alternative options to a roads-led solution, perpetuating a now discredited belief that in an urban context major new road capacity can provide lasting relief to the existing network.
- DfT guidance insists that many options are identified and appraised, and most suitable ones selected, progressively, to reach a preferred solution, a next best and a low cost alternative. This procedure has not been followed.
- This is part of a wider failing to follow government guidance on the appraisal process, which undermines many aspects of the scheme and has contributed to its lack of public acceptance.
The scheme has many other flaws:
- The scheme does not satisfy regional objectives and priorities. The regional priority is improvements to the road link to the port of Heysham, not a new road link. New road construction is the option of last resort, with the emphasis on making best use of existing infrastructure.
- The environmental appraisal is inadequate in detail, and does not respond to the outcomes of the appraisal.
- The public has not been consulted, and massive public opposition to the scheme has been ignored. This contravenes government guidance: stakeholder consultation should be an integral part of the appraisal process.
- Traffic modeling is questionable. Where there is serious congestion, and most existing traffic will not reassign to the new road, it is illusory to pretend that traffic levels will not rise back towards the current situation fairly rapidly, especially without significant demand management measures fully integrated into the solution.
- Highway design is questionable: M6 Junction 34 is complicated, appears as a poor design solution, and contributes to the very high scheme costs.
- Value for money is poor. LCC’s assessment relies too much on 60 year forecasts and unproven regeneration benefits. It ignores impacts which cannot be given a money value, like the effect on the landscape. Costs will inevitably increase: the Lune bridge must be redesigned with a wider span.
Conclusion:
A long time ago, the planners decided that a new road was needed to access the Heysham peninsula. The western route was rejected in 2004, and the northern route became the preferred scheme. Present guidance requires a process that starts with a “blank sheet” and a wide range of possible solutions, and explores how different solutions could work together. This scheme never followed that process.
The Northern Route will not solve the district’s congestion problems. Other less damaging solutions must be identified and appraised before this scheme is even considered.