Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, is no supporter of costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging new roads like the proposed Heysham M6 Link — and he has written to local transport campaign group Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe to tell them just that.
Mr. Baker, who is also MP for Lewes, says that government research, unearthed by the Campaign for Better Transport (PDF Link), shows that “the benefits forecast for new roads are not realised in practice… and that this has implications for all new road projects including the Heysham M6 Link road.
“Since 1997, the government has opened over 1,000 miles of new road (including widening) but only 27 miles of railway line,” notes the Shadow Minister. “The Lib Dems want to encourage a modal shift towards greener modes of travel and this includes from road to rail.
“We would therefore invest in improving and expanding the railway network, in particular in High Speed Rail and line and station re-openings over costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging new road projects.”
“TSLM is not party political, but we are encouraged by this response from a major political party,” says David Gate, chair of the group. “The government research revealed by the Campaign for Better Transport was undertaken for the Highways Agency, and it casts major doubt on the value for money of road building.
“The findings coincide with warnings from the Department for Transport that regional authorities should expect substantial cuts in their transport funding.”
The reports found that the overall traffic levels rose significantly as a direct result of opening each new road. Economic forecasts did not reflect the actual impact on local business, and any benefits were generally lower than predicted. CO2 emissions were higher than predicted, as were noise levels. Air quality was worse than forecast.
Two thirds of the roads studied simply moved the traffic congestion elsewhere.
At present, the Conservative-run County Council is pressing ahead with plans for the proposed unpopular Bypass between the M6 and Heysham. While TSLM opposes the Bypass altogether, suggesting alternative transport options to ease congestion, others who support a Bypass have previously argued the planned road is taking the wrong route.
The proposed route connects the already built length of the A683 Heysham to M6 Link, at its junction with the A589 Morecambe Road near Torrisholme, to a fully remodelled junction 34 on the M6 motorway near Halton.
The proposed dual carriageway road, at present estimated to cost £140 million, would cut across residential districts and destroy 173 acres of Green Belt farm land. It has been calculated that the Link would generate an extra 23,500 tonnes of CO2 per year from vehicle emissions and TSLM says is represents an attempt by the County Council to attract heavy goods vehicles to use Heysham as their ferry route to Ireland.
Morecambe and Lunesdale MP Geraldine Smith and both Morecambe Town Council and Lancaster City Council oppose the route, which will be the subject of another public inquiry in the near future after hundreds of objections were made to the plan. That will probably take place in June.
“In these difficult times, how can any political party justify spending £140 million of taxpayers’ money, when Government research shows that roads like the Heysham M6 Link do not solve peoples transport problems,” says Mr Gate.
“TSLM would like to see less money spent more effectively on the Faber Maunsell integrated transport plan for the district instead.”
Their alternative proposals include a call for a mix of Park & Ride – built into the cost of the Bypass scheme, but only if it goes ahead – the adoption of more Community and Freight on Rail, Quality Bus services, School, Workplace and Personalised Travel Plans, Car Share & Car Clubs and more.
Responding to the announcement of a Public Inquiry in January, Steve McCreesh, project manager for the M6 Heysham Link at Lancashire County Council, noted that “In total there are 18 statutory objections [to the scheme]. “(There were 19 but one has been withdrawn already), 14 letters of support and 463 non-statutory objections.
“Hundreds of these non-statutory objections are standard letters signed by the householder and are based on incorrect information,” he claimed in an online posting on the County Council web site.
“This road is vital to the area it terms of relieving congestion and providing the chance for regeneration,” argued Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation, County Councillor Keith Young in December. “It provides significant benefits to local communities, such as air quality benefits to Carnforth and flood relief to Slyne. It is a substantial investment in the area and I am determined to ensure the money is well spent.”
What is this incorrect information? Doesn't it indicate that there's some sort of problem with how this scheme has been communicated to the public, if "hundreds of householders" have the wrong information?
Good point, Allysoun: the County Council spokesperson obviously feels it would take too long to explain what the "wrong information" is on the County's web site, because he hasn't clarified the comment!
As part of the proposal will be a great improvement to the m6 junction 34 which was poorly designed at the start. There is quite a lot of heavy good traffic that has to go along Caton road that would no longer need to do so. The improvements that other roads will by the Goods traffic having a more direct route. It should improve things for people living in Heysham and Morcambe. Traffice that is bound for the motorway will have a more direct route which will free up space on roads heading towards Lancaster. Currently options for getting across the river are extremely limited. It's basically Greyhound bridge or Denny Beck. If you live in Slyne or Skerton then the proposed route provides a great alternative route. Access to the M6 could be within around 5 minutes intead of 15 – 20 minutes. Caton road / greyhound bridge is a poor route for all this traffic bound to and from Heysham / Morcambe. I hope the Bypass goes ahead, I think that there are many other benefits to having the bypass and there is probably more people who benefit from this than those who it will adversely affect.
I say anyone who isnt clear what exactly the proposal entails should just take a look at the details on the Lancaster council planning website.
How does enabling even more lorries to get to Heysham benefit the people of the area? Because that is what this road is intended to for.
The fact is, the local pro-road group locally hated this route for years saying it was the wrong route (except the Liberal Democrats, ironoically), but when the Western Bypass route was killed off they decided it was brilliant. Skerton Labour Party still has policy against this route, even though many Labour Party members elsewhere in the city do support it.
I don't think it's any coincidence that for a lot of its route the Bypass ploughs through land close to working class estates. It's a classic trick of the super rich to try and dump even more toxic crap – in this case, massive increases in pollution – on the poor's doorsteps when living conditions are already shit. They know there won't be organised opposition.
Well, they reckoned without the hundreds of people who have kicked up a fuss. This plan is a waste of money when resources are stretched thin and should be kicked into touch in favour of developing the things TSLM have suggested.
Take a look at the traffic that goes along Morcambe road, greyhound bridge, caton road and think how much of it is bound too and from Heysham and the motorway and anywhere in between. This makes those roads (apart from greyhound bridge) a lot more dangerous than what it could be as pedestrians and the heavy traffic mix. With the new route as it will be dual carriageway and safety will be increased due to traffic and pedestrians being more seperated.
This route is a real bottleneck for all users of the road as it's basically the only viable route for many to get to and from anywhere north of the river and Lancaster and the motorway, traffic moves slowly. Vehicles moving slowly in stop start traffic burn more fuel than those that flow at a steady pace. If you stop and take a look at the traffic that uses the route and think how much of it uses this route. Now if this traffic was on a dual carriageway it would flow more freely and each of those vehicles will burn less fuel. around 55mph, traveling at a steady pave is the most optimum speed for a car to travel to achieve the most MPG. Stop start traffic is the worst. Each vehicle that can go from stop start traffic to a more steady and consistent speed will decrease the ammount of pollution that was being produced. With the traffic that will be moved to use the new route the bottleneck that is the bridge across the river should be less severe. That will benefit anyone who lives north of the river who want to get to Lancaster. Plus as mentioned above there will be the benefit of the extra bridge across the river.
As far as the route is concerned, just take a look at it on a map. The route that it takes is very logical.
The latest "Anonymous" comment above about stop start traffic and impact on the environment just looks like hogwash to me. There are serious concerns about the levels of pollution the proposed bypass would cause.
The major problem that the road enthusiasts fail to counter is that when you build a new road, it encourages new traffic. Yes, for a time, the road alleviates 'pinch points': but if you look at Newbury's experience (for example) the Bypass only temporarily solved the problems that town had with traffic. Now traffic clogs up the Bypass AND the old routes it was supposed to alleviate.
The only reason the County is pushing this road scheme is to increase heavy goods traffic to Heysham port – they've said as much on many occasions. That is good for the local economy because it means Heysham would be better used but it would be far cheaper to improve rail access, using Carnforth as a marshalling point (the tracks and land are still there to do this), reducing the number of lorry journeys being made on local roads.
I don't think the Bypass will help in the long run – it's just going to be sticking plaster on a long-running traffic problem and within five years of it being built – if it gets built – we'll be back to Square One, if not earlier. All the statistical evidence and research – including the government's own, which is mentioned in the news story above – indicates that new roads are not the panacea to local traffic problems that some believe.
The bypass will definately not fix all the problems that the area has with it's traffic and travel but it would be a step in the right direction as it would move all that traffic bound for other destinations rather than our local roads and get them away from here. Real incentives to using other forms of getting around need to be put in place. A lot of the traffic is local so other links need to be greatly improved. One option may be to have a tram that will run from Heysham/ morcambe to Lancaster. A rethink of the bus routes needs to be done to best accomodate those who may wish to use it. The first two things that people will think of when considering the public transport option would be How much it costs and how long will it take to get there. If it's no better than personal transport then it's a none starter for many. The next is the comfort aspect. Am I going to get a seat? am I going to even be able to fit on to the train/bus? I used to work in Manchester city centre and for me I would rather cycle 6 miles than be strapped in like sardines as is common for there. Personal safety, people need to feel safe how they travel. There is no doubt that Lancaster coucil and the public transport companies have a lot to work on to improve matters around here. Much of the responsibility falls on ourselves however as there is much that we can do. Thankfully the cycle network around here is tremendous, but further improvements are still to be made. I know of people who instead of taking a walk that would only take just over 10 minutes to get to work will instead use there cars. Indeed there is a lot to be done and one thing can not fix all problems.
As far as stop start traffic and the impact on the environment being hogwash is concerned the figures speak for themselves. Take a look at the MPG figures of pretty much any car and you will see the difference that can be acheieved by driving in different environments is concerned and you will see that the Urban figure records a much lower MPG than the extra urban figure. This is because when a vehicle is stationary with the engine running you achieve a steady 0 MPG! Anytime that you accelerate you burn more fuel. Any time you brake you burn more fuel. The most efficient speed depends on your vehicle but it's usually at the lowest RPM that your vehicle can sustain in it's highest gear. There are hundreds of websites that spell out how to drive in the most efficient manner, indeed there are people who compete with each other on how to acheive the most MPG. CleanMPG is one site that will give examples of this and I suggest that anyone who drives a vehicle would be well advised to listen to the advice given as less fuel burnt per mile will benefit everyone. Another bit of useful advice on how to burn the least fuel per mile can be found here: http://www.eartheasy.com/live_fuel_efficient_driving.htm
The whole picture needs to be looked at. It will take a heck of a lot to entice the businesses to make use of the rail network for the freight traffic rather than using road, plus the fact is that if they want to transfer the cargo from point A to point B, the rail network is not as well connected so what would happen is that instead of the load being put on to one truck at point A and taken straight to point B and be unloaded, the alternative would be for a lorry/truck to take it from point A to the rail freight terminal the railway would take the load to the terminal closest to where it would be picked up by another lorry/truck and then finally transported to point B. Now the problems that we have here is that the rail network just cannot compete as the network is just not as well connected. As a mode of transporting goods in concerned rail if it had decent enough source to destination links would be more efficient. A larger load can be transported per vehicle, the transport of goods could be faster and a lorry will typically deliver around 5MPG. Also there is the benefit that all this traffic would be moved away from people/pedestrians, bus routes etc which would improve safety. This would be great if this could be achieved but this would need to happen across the whole rail network. It would cost a heck of a lot of money and take a very long time. The natural conclusion here is that it's not a viable option at this time. Hopefully this can happen in the future, but this would take top down initiative by government for the whole rail network. If more businesses would be willing to use the rail freight links through potentially Carnforth then that would be great! I guess this would depend of if the businesses involved would make use of this option if it was available.
This bypass is in completley different situation to what the Newbury situation was as in real terms Heysham doesn't have that much through traffic to other places as what Newbury does. Heysham and Morcambe have already seen the benefit of heavier traffic being moved away from there residential areas due to the first bit of the bypass. The key thing here is that the heavier transport will be moved away from other road users, safety and links will improve for those in Heysham, Morcambe and anywhere else north of the river.
It's about time these irritating people got themselves informed before spouting opinions on things they know nothing about. The majority of the traffic on M/C Rd (about 80% according to LCC outdated figs) ISN'T going to the Motorway. They are travelling between L/C and Heysham and M/C, often in cars containing only 1 or 2 people, instead of using public transport or car sharing. It is local congestion that needs dealing with and no-one can fail to notice the improvement in traffic flow when the schools are off and parents aren't ferrying their kids to school as school buses are too expensive. On the proposed dual carriageway, traffic wouldn't be able to achieve the optimum fuel efficiency as there will be roundabouts, traffic lights and huge hills & valleys to contend with on this 3.2 mile journey – as 'Anonymous' suggests, look at council website to see exactly how much adverse impact this road would have….just make sure it's the COUNTY council website you check, as our local CITY council are in touch with their constituents and are sensibly opposed to the scheme!!
Figures related to traffic levels are very subjective. For example the 80% figure which it doesn’t say is 80% of the traffic on Morcambe road, what is actually stated is:
“80% of traffic in Lancaster & Morecambe is locally generated (i.e. not through-traffic).” (that’s from the TSLM website) Well that’s obvious! Most traffic wouldn’t travel to and from Heysham and the motorway. This figure includes the whole area! What would be more helpful is to find out what the figure regarding traffic between Heysham, Morcambe and the Industrial estate and the motorway and compare that. To achieve useful data like this is very difficult and at the end of the day people need to think for themselves and instead of trying to see things from there own perspective try to see all angles of what needs to be done. As you will see above I am not coming at this whole issue from one perspective but from many. There is much that needs to be done regarding the traffic and travel across Lancaster and Morcambe of which the separating of People and heavy goods traffic is one aspect of it. I advocate that people should think for themselves and see what exactly is going on. Look for yourselves at the sort of traffic going along the route that is stated and see what the benefit of this moving to a more suitable road would be. Parents need to take the responsibility to find a school close to where they live so they can safely help there kids get to school without excessive use of personal transport. As far as the efficiency of the route is concerned it’s a heck of a lot better than sitting in stop start traffic. Plus there is the benefit of better links between places, an extra bridge across the river and an improvement to the motorway junction which as already stated is poorly designed. There would be one roundabout around Skerton/Slyne which traffic would need to slow down for and another to negotiate as part of the new junction to the M6 but that is only two instances of needing to slow down and accelerate where on the other route there is many.
We need much better public transport links. At present there isn't even a bus service to Salt Ayre Leisure Centre at all.
Public transport barely serves the industrial estate at Salt Ayre with one bus per hour on the main thoroughfare and nothing for the draughty miles of secondary estate routes. How are commuters supposed to get to work if not by car? Not to mention the people who drop their cars off for service at the many garage / carshops there.
The bypass is no alternative because people want to get around the area and that should be our first priority rather than just focussing on how to escape the mess. The trouble is that that would involve getting bus companies to provide a more flexible public service at a reasonable cost, something their shareholders have lost sight of.
Cars are regularly caught speeding on the Heysham bypass road near the industrial estate. It's where people take cars for a test drive because you get a good straight clear long run and can accelerate. There's barely any traffic on it – and that's the amount of traffic a bypass might relieve – after you subtract all the Heysham people travelling to Asda, Sainsburies, schools, local jobs and the industrial estate.
I rest my case.