Letters of Objection |
The Underlying Rationale for a New Tyne Crossing
Paul Fenwick 22nd December 2000 Dear Mr Fenwick, I am writing to you on behalf of the North East of England Green Party to object to the proposed New Tyne Crossing (NTC). The objections are set out below and made with particular reference to the NTC document on the website of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority (TWPTA) at http://www.tynewear-pta.gov.uk/ntc The Underlying Rationale for a New Tyne
Crossing. In the section of the TWPTA document headed
'Why?', the following "The volume of traffic crossing the River
Tyne is now such that the Tyne Bridge, Redheugh Bridge, Scotswood Bridge
and Blaydon Bridge are currently running at full capacity. A new
crossing is needed to relieve congestion and to stimulate economic
development" There are several problems with this basic argument.
After examining Graph 1: 'Total Cross Tyne Traffic 1992-1999', the main traffic growth over this period appears to be across the Redheugh Bridge and across the Blaydon Bridge. The Blaydon Bridge is the Al bridge and most of the traffic using this will be moving past both Gateshead and Newcastle. If you believe that traffic from here will divert to the NTC, then you are clearly expecting through traffic to be using the NTC, not local traffic moving between the north and south banks of the Tyne, which contradicts the stated reason for the NTC, which is apparently to connect the north and south banks of the Tyne. The existing road is the A19, which is essentially a through road; the NTC will effectively add a new set of lanes to this through road. The Redheugh Bridge connects Newcastle City Centre with Gateshead. The drivers using this bridge will not be inclined to be diverted to a NTC further along the Tyne, out of their way. All the other crossings appear to have little or no growth in traffic flow.
The idea that new roads automatically lead to congestion relief is flawed. From the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTFA) Report in 1994 onwards, the government has recognised that the 'Predict and Provide' approach does not relieve congestion. Rather, new roads generate more traffic, and the relief of congestion, if at all visible, is only ever temporaryl. The TWPTA will be faced with exactly the same problem in a few years if it goes ahead with the NTC. It will not solve the problem, only defer it to the future. This is old-fashioned and unsustainable thinking. Further it is stated later in the TWPTA document
that: "the existing Under the 1997 Road Traffic Reduction Act2, Local
Authorities are now required to take measures to reduce private car
traffic in their area. The building of the NTC will go against this. The
'bottleneck1 is created because of the numbers of private vehicles
making unnecessary and polluting journeys, and may ironically, actually
discourage further potentially unnecessary and polluting journeys.
Increased emphasis on Sustainable Local Economic Development (see below)
and better public transport and provision for walkers and cyclists would
ease this situation. In addition to the above sentence, later in the TWPTA document it is claimed: "the building of a new tunnel will improve the economic prospects of both North and South Tyneside Boroughs, creating a more effective link between people and jobs on both banks of the river". The relationship between road building and economic development is problematic. Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that road-building, particularly in an area with already massive road infrastructure, increases economic development. It is a unfounded assumption. Even the government's own advisory committee now claims that 'decoupling' transport and economic growth is both necessary and possible3. There is also the wider question of what is meant by economic development. There is increasing evidence to suggest that conventionally measured economic growth has less-and-less correlation with well-being (quality of life) in developing countries4. It is precisely factors like ill-founded over-development of road infrastructure leading to increased congestion, to people suffering from respiratory disorders, to accidents, and therefore greater costs to the Health Service etc., that have lead to this situation. There is also an assumption here that greater mobility equals better prospects for jobs and so on. What creates a successful and thriving local economy is accessibility - that is jobs and services where people live. Businesses in the current market~ ~ economy are increasingly footloose and mobile. Making assumptions about particular places being the sources of jobs is dangerous, as those jobs 'may well be short-lived (witness Siemens, Fujitsu etc.). It is far better to put sustained and long-term investment into developing stable, resiliant local economies5. Given these fundamental flaws in the underlying
ethos of the project it is hard to understand that this proposal was
drafted "after long and exhaustive studies". It appears from
studying older documents that the remit for such studies was always very
narrow, accepted the supposedly self-evident need for an NTC, and
concentrated on questions of route etc. Therefore these studies never
admitted even the possibility of alternative strategies. The Specific Effects of the Proposed New Tyne Crossing. 1. Community effects. In the section, entitled: 'How it will affect you?', it is stated: "to construct the tunnel using immersed tube technology will necessitate the demolition of St Peter's School, a nursing home, and around 50 homes in Jarrow." As a principle, we find it unacceptable to
demolish community resources and homes in favour of new roads. At the
very least there should be a process of meaningful consultation with the
affected community about whether or not they find this acceptable. The
destruction of a school also highlights the particularly serious impact
of road traffic on children, whose health and mobility are more
detrimentally affected by congestion and pollution than almost any other
group in society6. 2. Environmental effects. This destruction is then justified on the grounds that: "once it is built the tunnel will bring substantial environmental benefits to both communities by reducing noise and air pollution, as well as traffic congestion and incidents of 'rat running' especially in the East Howdon area". This is an extraordinary statement considering that the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not yet been carried out. Are we to assume that the contents of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are already known to the TWPTA, in other words that the EIA, like so many bad examples, will be a self-serving justification rather than a real assessment? In addition, this reasoning relies on the same flawed assumptions which underpin the general arguments for the project. There is in fact every reason, given recent studies, to suppose that noise, air pollution, congestion and 'rat-running' will increase.. Finally, two serious environmental concerns are missing or underplayed. No mention is made of the indirect impact of the project on the Riverside Park, one of the only areas of green space available to local residents. This is due to a related proposal for a new road (the 'Riverside Route') which is likely to become a tunnel feeder road. Such related projects should be considered as part of a complete EIA. We look forward to seeing whether this is the case. Secondly, the issue of the contribution of
transport to anthropogenic climate change ('Global Warming') is under-emphasised.
Global Warming is the single most serious threat to society today. All
local authorities, public bodies should now be taking steps to reduce
emissions of the gasses that cause Global Warming, particularly Carbon
Dioxide. Road traffic is now the second largest generator of Carbon
Dioxide in the UK7, and the NTC will only lead to increased Carbon
Dioxide emmissions. 3. The privatisation of transport infrastructure. In the Introductory section, it is stated:"it is anticipated that the full £100 million-plus cost of constructing the new tunnel will be met ~ by a consortium of private sector investors who, when appointed, will take responsibility for the operation of all the Tyne Tunnels and will set tolls subject to agreement by the TWPTA." We object to the increasing privatisation of
public infrastructure, especially infrastructure supposedly 'necessary'
for the functioning of efficient public transport. It seems that in the
end, the only people who will really benefit from this project are the
private sector investors, who will benefit not only from the provision
of land for this development, but also from tolls for an indefinite
period in the future. This statement supports the view that this
development has nothing to do with decreasing traffic; for surely
increasing traffic in the area would be in the financial interests of
the consortium who would gain from increased journeys through the NTC. Institutional Issues. In addition to the pre-emption of the EIA mentioned above, the timetable given above assumes that the development will go ahead once the Public Inquiry is out of the way. This presumption gives rise to fear that the Public Inquiry will be decided in advance. A real Inquiry would allow for the possibility that the NTC will not be allowed to go ahead. The issuing of compulsory purchase orders for the sites to be demolished under the proposal in advance of the conclusions of the Public Inquiry is also premature Finally, we feel that the proposed NTC contradicts
the stated duty of the TWPTA, which: "is to ensure that Tyne and
Wear has a fully integrated multi-modal public transport system that
meets the general needs of the people who live and work in the area and
underpins the social and economic fabric of the conurbation". Summary Overall it seems that, rather than supporting multi-modal (and integrated) public transport, the proposed NTC, based on flawed assumptions, will only serve to continue the unsustainable growth of the private car and put money in the hands of private corporations, at the expense of the local community, future generations and the local and global environment The North-East of England Green Party will be
keeping a very close watch on the progress of this proposal and will
contest it every step of the way. Yours Sincerely, David Wood, 1 Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) (1994) Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic, London: ITh~1SO. 2 Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 http://www.detr.gov.uk/roads/roadnetwork/rtra97/ltaguide/rtra08.htm 3 SACTRA (1999) Transport and the Economy, London:
The Stationary Office. Summary available online:http://www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/sactra/index.htm 4 Jackson, T. and Marks, N. (1994) Measuring Sustainable Economic Welfare: A Pilot Index 1950-1990. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute. 5 Whitelegg, John (1994) Roads, Jobs & The
Economy, London: Greenpeace. ESee for example: Hillman, Mayer et al.
(1990) One False Move: a study of children's independent mobility,
London: Policy Study Institute. 7 Department of Environment, Tranpsort
and the Regions (DETR) (2000) Climate Change: Draft UK Programme,
available online at: |