|
TCA - more information
about us | more information | contact us
The Alliance's objections to the proposed new road tunnel, set out at greater length with the same item numbers as in 'about us', are as follows:
- Increased congestion and greater problems in the future
- Further promotion of the A19 as a through route bringing yet more noise and pollution
- Reversed Government policies on traffic restraint
- Further damage to the community and town of Jarrow
- Further damage to the already divided community of Willington Quay
- New 'rat runs' and a greatly increased 'rat run' nuisance for residents both north and south of the river
- Increased air pollution
- Increased noise and vehicle nuisance throughout the region
- No overall economic benefit
- Destruction of the countryside
- Deny the necessary alternatives of traffic restraint and improved public transport
- Changes sought by the TWPTA since the Inquiry would lead to much higher tolls, threaten open-ended claims on Council Tax, and deny local people the right to enjoy certain public open spaces.
NOTES
1) Increased congestion and greater problems in the future
Increased road capacity would lead to an increase in car traffic and would add to congestion in Tyne and Wear especially in the boroughs adjacent to the north and south portals. This increased traffic would be comprised of mainly non-work journeys, after the pattern of car transport in the Region as a whole where only 15% of journeys are to and from a place of employment (1). This extra travel would have no overall economic benefit while the increased congestion would comprise a strong disbenefit and lead to a loss in quality of life for local residents. The statutory requirement that an alternative (in this case non-tunnel) scenario be factored into the project assessment was not met: the second road tunnel option was chosen after considering bridge options but the alternatives of no new crossing, or a rail-only tunnel from South to North Shields were not considered (2). The associated Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (3) also failed to consider adequate alternative scenarios on the basis that the construction of a road tunnel was likely to proceed. [top]
2) Further promotion of the A19 as a through route bringing yet more noise and pollution
The construction of a second road tunnel would further promote the A19 as a through route bringing in yet more noise and pollution around the clock from HGVs and long distance traffic despite assurances that it is intended for local and not strategic use. [top]
3) Reversed Government policies on traffic restraint
The construction would be a step in the wrong direction. Traffic needs to be reduced regionally and nationally - nearly 450 MP's declared their support for the Road Traffic Reduction Bill in 1999 but the Bill was watered down by the Government. Not withstanding this climbdown from its own previous intention to achieve a reduction in present levels of traffic, the Government seeks to minimise an increase and maintains a strong presumption towards traffic limitation in all its transport directives. The Tyne road tunnel proposal conflicts with that presumption. If, as Alliance members believe, a strengthened will for traffic restraint emerges from the necessity of events over the next few years, then the tunnel proposal will be seen as more than a white elephant. It will have the appearance of a plot to distort the transport mix in favour of the car. [top]
4) Further damage to the community and town of Jarrow
The tunnel construction would be exceptionally damaging to the local community of Jarrow while work was in progress. Jarrow has not yet recovered from the construction of the first tunnel which destroyed parts of the town and disturbed communities. The proposed new tunnel would be much more disruptive since the cut-and-cover construction proposed requires a 25 metre-deep trench to be cut right through the town centre.
When the previous tunnel was bored large rats emerged and invaded a local school. The proposed new tunnel requires the removal of large quantities of waste for which the Alliance considers proper provision has not been made, and from which a large heavy lorry traffic could result. The alternative is dumping at sea which may not be allowed, and which would be strenuously resisted by local fishermen if it were authorised.
The construction would sterilise valuable recreational land and restrict access during construction: some of this land would be released for recreation when complete. But busy roads would bar the newly created sites to small children from an important local community which now has grassed recreational space immediately adjacent. Extra traffic generated by the new tunnel would make all local roads less pleasant and yet more dangerous, especially for children, than they are even now. Underpasses and bridges for pedestrian road crossings that would be required to restore some access are unacceptable to many local residents and inconvenient to all of them. [top]
5) Further damage to the already divided community of Willington Quay
The first road tunnel severed the community of Willington Quay on the north side. This was previously a vibrant community centred on the Parish Church. Now two run-down communities exist on each side of the existing tunnel roadworks and the church is on the edge of one of them. No benefit is discernible to the communities north or south of the River from the existing tunnel, and the Alliance suggests that no benefit would accrue from a second road tunnel. On the other hand extra traffic generated by an additional tunnel would further reduce the local quality of life and the creation of a large quantity of potentially toxic waste to be stored near houses during construction is the same as for Jarrow. Likewise a large export of this material by heavy lorries may occur. [top]
6) New 'rat runs' and a greatly increased 'rat run' nuisance for residents both north and south of the River
Rat runs already cause distress for local residents and increased cross-River traffic as predicted by the TWPTA would exacerbate this problem as local roads immediately adjacent to the tunnel and further afield begin to clog up. [top]
7) Increased air pollution
The TWPTA claims that an additional tunnel would reduce air pollution. This is nonsense: pollution arising from congestion at the present portals at peak transit times would simply be transferred further "downstream" into the already congested local streets. Pollution must increase sharply due to the increase in the numbers of polluting vehicles both at the tunnel portals and elsewhere on their journeys. [top]
8) Increased noise and vehicle nuisance throughout the region
The TWPTA's evidence treats noise nuisance as an inevitable feature of urban life, presumably on the basis that residents have no redress against increased noise except in certain circumstances when they can claim a grant for improved insulation for their homes. But noise restraint outside one's house - in the garden (if one has a garden or even a yard), on the pavement, at shops, schools and medical centres and in the park (if one can get to a park) - is crucial to the quality of life and health. Increased insulation when available for one's home is no defence against noise in the open air where everyone spends some time and most of us should spend more time than we do to improve our health and enjoyment. While available in theory, additional home insulation to reduce noise is seldom available to affected homeowners or tenants due to the restrictive criteria which are applied to assessments.
Many streets in the two boroughs north and south of the River support shops, and some of these streets are already so noisy from traffic that conversations on the pavements are difficult. Sometimes they are impossible. Some roads such as Wallsend Road in North Tyneside comprise shopping centres with schools on both sides, and the TWPTA plans to increase the trafficon this road by 60% with other large increases elsewhere. The Alliance submits that even these admitted tunnel-related increases are underestimated due to the fact that that a "yes" to a new road tunnel would amount to a "yes" to traffic increases elsewhere.
The only possible result from increased traffic on local roads (residential roads in particular being inelastic) is ever-greater stress and congestion leading to inevitable gridlock. This process, if permitted to continue, would create a result much harder to resolve in 20 years' time. Members of the Alliance do not pretend that reducing traffic will be easy, but the nettle must be grasped since resolution becomes harder every year that elapses and we are passing on a desperate legacy to our children unless we change our habits now. [top]
9) No overall economic benefit
The Alliance does not agree with the TWPTA's claim of economic benefit from a second tunnel. Delays by motorists of 6 minutes which is the average reported by the TWPTA at peak times are no greater (often less) than waits which public transport users regard as normal and inevitable even with a good service. Tolling at the present tunnel is already strongly weighted in favour of lorry traffic in order to reduce flow of HGVs on other routes in the Region, and this cross-subsidy appears to be at risk for a new tunnel. The present two-way tunnel hasn't brought evidence of economic benefit to the local communities at each end, and the presumption of transport-led growth implicit in the TWPTA's rationale for promoting a new tunnel is outmoded. Current Government planning advice continues to be to reduce the number of journeys, to reduce journey length, and to promote means of travel alternative to the private car.
The main local justification for the tunnel is that it would promote leisure and jobs access (4): this is in the face of all planning guidelines which require leisure trips by car to be be minimised and jobs to be located near to the relevant conurbations. Leisure journeys contribute no overall economic benefit while they contribute to the congestion experienced by public transport, by the police and fire services, and by those making car and other road journeys that are essential. Additional provisions are under discussion for economic development south of the South Tyneside conurbation within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (5). With these in place there should be no imbalance of employment opportunity north and south of the River. [top]
10) Destruction of the countryside
The preferred alternative to a new Tyne road tunnel is to reduce car dependence and to restrain car growth by road charging and more widespread parking space charging, and by other contributary measures such as prohibiting pavement parking, so making unneccessary ownership of cars less attractive. In future, planning must reduce the need to travel by locating shops, work, health, education and leisure services next to housing and accessible by good public transport. Out of town living and commuting should only feature in planning if sited adjacent to frequent and reliable public transport means covering work, leisure and cultural activities (6).
Urban housing should not be allowed to intrude into the countryside which is one of Northumberland and Durham's greatest remaining assets both for residents and tourists. Intrusion by "executive estates" and the like is the inevitable result of relaxed car restraint and must be avoided.
The Alliance favours the alternative provision of train and light rail (including tram) routes which should comprise the basis for commuting journeys when out-of-town living is unavoidable. The Alliance favours extended and improved tram, light rail and heavy rail services such as those which are featured in the TWPTA's full Orpheus Project. The possibility of non roads-led growth is illustrated by the spread of the Greater London conurbation along rail routes rather than roads during the 19th and early 20th centuries. [top]
11) Deny the necessary alternative of traffic restraint and improved public transport
The strategically important maritime industry requires waterside land to be safeguarded and no further provisions to be made for waterside housing on commercial deep-water quays and commercial hinterland. This would bring employment to accessible sites north and south of the River. Ferries could play an important transport role up and down the River as well as across it, with additional jetties, enabling a greater variety of journeys. The Alliance welcomes some TWPTA proposals to this end. Alliance members remember (and used) the mid-Tyne ferries which served shipyards on the river banks adjacent. This represented an ideal transport-effective use of Riverside land. Expanding world demand for ships and maritime services arising from the current highest-ever maritime freight rates makes shipbuilding and repair a long-term growth industry (whereas the market for computer chips in contrast is saturated). Markets change and the Region should preserve its ability address lucrative maritime projects. [top]
12) Changes sought by the TWPTA since the Inquiry would lead to much higher tolls, threaten open-ended claims on Council Tax, and deny local people the right to enjoy certain public open spaces.
An application by the TWPTA after the Inquiry, for permission to relax tolling arrangements for the proposed tunnel, and for a change of the provisions for open spaces to escape from the requirements of the 1981 Compulsory Purchase Order Act for some tunnel-related land, has led to a request by the DfE for further consultation. The Alliance has argued that the proposed new tolling arrangements would expose the public to the threat of open-ended toll rises, and that they would put the public in a vulnerable position should the Concessionaire become insolvent. This could give rise to a major claim on Council Tax.
The Alliance has drawn the TWPTA's attention to the huge increase in the price of road projects which have occurred between the Minister's approval and the time when the contract price was eventually agreed (7). Moreover, the budget sum of £170 million proposed for just 4 junctions on the A19 easily exceeds the £139m (at 1999 prices) that was claimed to be sufficient to design and build the proposed new tunnel. The sums for clearing the outstanding debt on the original tunnel, and the cost of promoting and meeting statutary consultative requirements for the project appear to be extra to the £139m quoted. Undoubtedly, the proposed tunnel would result in a substantial toll rise for users above and beyond the doubling already accepted as inevitable by the TWPTA.
We believe that the move to avoid Compulsory Purchase Orders represents a denial of public rights. [top]
NOTES
- Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North East Consultation Draft November 2004 Technical Background paper No.10 Transport (TTP). Only 15% of journeys in the North East are related to 'getting to work'. These are the principal journeys exposed to congestion (TTP 4.28), and,the mean journey time to work in the North East is only 21 minutes, the lowest figure in England (TTP 3.09). [back]
- The full NECTAR commentary on TAMMS is at Inquiry Paper 396/0/3. For context see Inquiry Paper 396/0/4, Section 5.4, second paragraph. These are available online, here. [back]
- The Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (TAMMS) is available here - choose 'Transport' - 'Regional transport studies' - 'Tyneside Area Multimodal Study'. [back]
- Letter from Stephen Hepburn MP to Paul Winch 24th January, 1998. [back]
- The RSS proposals are set out under the banner view: shaping the north east in 'Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East - Consultation Draft' and the public supporting Technical papers, all available online here. [back]
- Policy 21 of the Regional Spacial Strategy available here. [back]
- Transport 2000 Press Release 28th June 2004 "Huge cost increases hit road progamme - environmental groups ask MPs to investigate": "The national roads programme has been hit by large scale cost increases, according to research by leading environmental groups. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 have found costs rising by as much as 170% between ministers agreeing schemes in principle and projects entering the roads programme. The groups have now written to the Public Accounts Committee asking MPs to order a National Audit Office investigation" (examples given). [back] [top]
|
