Campaigners against the proposed M6 Link Road north of Lancaster to Heysham port are calling on Lancashire County Council to reconsider the costly scheme – even though outgoing Labour councillors tried to saddle their Conservative replacements with the project just before the last local elections.
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe, a group campaigning for integrated transport measures for Lancaster and Morecambe, recently discovered that Labour County Councillors, staring defeat in the face at local elections earlier this year, tried to rush through orders on the building of the controversial Heysham M6 Link road in Labour’s final days of power. If they had been successful they would have committed their Conservative successors to the expensive, destructive and under performing Labour plan.
Despite major unresolved issues, the then Labour Council Cabinet member Matthew Tomlinson gave his go ahead on orders which would have triggered the compulsory purchase of millions of pounds worth of green belt farm land north of Lancaster and Morecambe, which would then be bulldozed by the Council to build a massive lorry route to Heysham from the M6.
Behind the scenes, the County Council planners were in discussion with the Department for Transport (DfT) on the content of the draft orders, and the DfT have since made a number of comments pointing out errors and suggesting changes to the Council’s plans. There was no agreement on the orders as given the go ahead by Cllr Tomlinson, who lost his seat in the election a week later.
It was left to TSLM to point this out and local MP Geraldine Smith took up her constituents’ concerns, raising the matter with the Department for Transport and urging Lancashire County Council to comply with the law and obtain a new and valid resolution to make the Orders.
The Council’s Solicitor has since announced that a new resolution will be considered in October.
“This scheme would have a major impact on my constituents”, said Geraldine Smith MP, “and it is only right that the correct procedures should be followed at every stage.”
“What a pity that the new Council has not taken the opportunity to seize the transport initiative in Lancashire,” commented David Gate, Chair of TSLM, clearly pleased that despite Labour shenanigans, the scheme has not yet cleared all the legal hurdles, and is not yet assured of funding from a cash-strapped government.
“The world has changed and moved on since this HGV route plan was first mooted,” he argues. “Plans to get Lancaster and Morecambe connected and moving again already exist: they are gathering dust in Council offices as they work to get the lorry route plan up and running.
“The new County Council has the opportunity to shake off the financial burden imposed by the old Council, and to prioritise these integrated transport plans to free up congestion in North Lancashire with less of a contribution to the national debt mountain.”
Before the road project can go further, Lancashire County Council need to publish the “Orders” for the Heysham M6 Link and will then issue Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to acquire the land for the road, Side Road Orders (SROs) to block up local roads while they are building it, and so on.
When the Orders are published, TSLM say they will ask all their supporters to object to them, and express their continuing opposition to the destructive plans, which the campaigners hope will lead to another Public Inquiry to consider the details of the scheme.
“This damaging scheme, which will have such an impact on the people of the area, should go back to the full Council for a decision”, feels Mr Gate.
Are you really suggesting that the road network in Lancaster is fit for purpose in it's current form?
All it takes is one event or minor incident and the roads are gridlocked for hours.
We need more roads through to Morecambe and anybody who thinks otherwise is living in cloud cukku land.
We would all be totally screwed in the event of a major emergency.
Oh, here we go – the old "what happens if Heysham Power Station" has a meltdown scare. We'd be dead anyway, dufus.
The roads are crap because the County Council has sat on its hands for years doing nothing to introduce things like Park and Ride, which could have been done years ago: and if people didn't insist on driving their kids to school instead of making them walk there would definitely be less traffic on the roads – as anyone driving around Lancaster in the summer months would confirm.
Yes, Lancaster traffic is bad – but there are things that could be done that would be a damm sight better than building a £130 million plus road, which everyone always said was in the wrong place until it was the only option left open.
If you're stuck in traffic try walking next time – or get a bus
"If you're stuck in traffic try walking next time – or get a bus"
Am I the only person here that recognizes that some destinations are too long (or wet!) to do on foot? And if getting the bus is the alternative that the buses are ALSO caught up in the traffic nightmare?
The problem here isn't entirely bus vs car. Its the roads. We have optimized them as much as they will go, now we need more. The alternative is that the area starts to contract instead of grow, and then people start losing jobs.
Hang on. By that logic, every time a road became 'full' we should build another one. We'd end up covering everything in concrete. That doesn't make sense (even though loads of people seem to like concrete and tarmac, often to cover their old front gardens to park their extra cars).
There aren't too few roads, there are too many cars, often used for short journeys like taking kids to school or nipping to the corner shop. As one commentator above says, just look at the difference in traffic outside school term – and come to that, University term – the Universities haven't done any of us any favours in trying to curb car use, even though hundreds of buses go past Smarties (now the University of Cumbria) and to the Bailrigg campus every week.
As for the argument that more roads bring more jobs, that's rubbish. Using that logic road-filled Burnley would have full employment. There's plenty of evidence to put the boot into the roads equals jobs argument if you do some research.
One of the reasons the road lobby want this particular bypass built is so lorries can get to Heysham more easily. It's in the wrong place to alleviate Lancaster traffic in any major way — which is what Labour and all the other parties argued for years until they couldn't get their western bypass. Now this road plan is brilliant as far as they're concerned. They've blocked other traffic reduction methods because they're still thinking about road use in 1960s terms.
To my mind, they're all in the pockets of the road lobbies who have vested interests in more roads because more roads always mean more cars, more traffic and even more pollution.
It's a vicious circle we have to break. Just look at the research Lancaster University has done into pollution around Lancaster already. It's horrifying. But more roads aren't the answer, less car use is.
Lancaster is expanding. The University, as one major employer and source of income for the area, is planning campus expansions but is being stifled because of the lack of capacity on the A6 (and really daft planning of the M6 junctions).
The campus needs more investors to secure a better future. If people start walking away, or fail to walk in, then there will be serious repurcussions in Lancaster. Many city businesses rely on the trade that the University brings. More to the point, the city could use more University people – and this is one development that will lead to more 'all year round/part of community' groups.
Morecambe needs more employers and could use more people living and visiting there – but it's access from Lancaster is bottlenecked to effectively a single road link. I know loads of people that chose to avoid, or leave, Morecambe because of this – or have to work ludicrous hours to avoid the trouble.
The fact is the entire inter-town traffic system can no longer to be optimized any further. We need to provide viable alternatives that people will actually *want* to use or chose. Or we have to start advising people to not live in the area – and they will take their money and run.
The link road will provide at least a diversionary route for people heading into Morecambe from North Lancaster and the M6. This will in turn partially help those from South Lancaster. The ONLY other way in or out of Morecambe is via Carnforth – and that cant be good for the environment.
The bus companies have done a reasonable job of keeping students and staff out of cars. Reasonable(ish) bus ticket deals and expensive car parking have seen to that – even though the capacity provided is insufficient. Many buses are full and standing and when the students are not around we have to go home before six or potentially face a soaking.
Basically, there is a need for *something* to be done that does not penalise people. And the lack of proposed alternatives isn't doing the anti-Link Road campaigners any good. They have voices and viable ideas too, right?
Things that could be tried:
* Less dwell time in the town centre for some buses. At the moment buses do a kind of loop-de-loop and spend over 15 minutes in town when passing through. Providing facilities for drivers at the University could permit this.
* Remove the pedestrian crossing from the end of Greyhound bridge and replace it with something else. This will help the fold-in-turn to operate as designed (ie. with traffic moving).
* Reduce the speed limit on greyhound bridge to 30mph, or raise speed limit to the first roundabout to 40mph. This will help to avoid accidents and will also help to prevent queuing as the speed limit comes back down. Keeping traffic moving = more fuel efficiency = less smoke.
* Close one of the lanes on Greyhound bridge to avoid the queuing in the first place. If this is needed to support traffic flows from the J34, put in part-time intelligent traffic lights to allow large blocks to move at once.
* Close or shift the bus lane on Morecambe Road between the roundabout and the dualed section. Shift the lanes so that there are two lanes all the way to the round about towards Morecambe.
* Recognise that cycling is a good thing, but should be an option rather than requirement. Spend some money improving safe/viable cycling in south Lancaster. Let people chose cycling, rather than forcing it onto them.
* Consider cheaper and less invasive road links from J34 to Hest Bank. Upgrade roads to make them safer.
* Eliminate/divert some junctions to keep traffic flowing. The railways have been 'rationalising' like this for some time. It makes the overall system more reliable.
* Improve bus links around the full University campus after 6pm all year. Service 40/41/42 used to visit sporadically to cover this – and no longer do so.
* Improve links to the train station and the facilities generally – to pursuade more people to use the train in/out of Morecambe and Lancaster.
* Be more public about the options and the benefits. Let people have their say.