(2) The following extract from "Reports under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans" DETR, paragraph 368 illustrates the somewhat inconclusive nature of the Governmen's position in this regard.  Alliance members will seek to harden the Government's resolve in this matter which must come sooner or later as most observers agree.  However the Government clearly entertains road traffic reduction as an aspiration (the use of that word in the enclosed paragraph is ironical) and the onus (and power) to set local targets is passed on to local authorities.
      "We do not favour the use of "aspirational" targets for road traffic reduction (i.e. targets for which no means of achieving them have been identified, or appraisal carried out).  RTRA targets will form part of a set of targets to be used in measuring performance against objectives in the LTP and authorities should aim to set targets that are challenging but achievable.  RTRA reports will need to indicate which measures within the LTP are expected to contribute to road traffic reduction and the relative significance of these in achieving any target(s) that have been set.  Targets should be framed in the light of the likely level of resources available to implement traffic reduction measures".
      We would point out that in the case of Tyne crossings a very large investment is proposed to be made not to reduce traffic, but to increase traffic.  This certainly conflicts with the Government's "aspiration" illustrated above.

(3) "In town centres a hierarchy of road user priorities should prevail. At the top is the pedestrian and those with disabilities, followed by the cyclist, then the van OR LORRY driver for access (then the lorry driver delivering goods) and, finally and at the bottom of the hierarchy, SHOPPERS IN PRIVATE CARS AND THOSE MOTORISTS COMMUTING TO WORK (the private motorist)".  Paraphrase of a point made in a Public Lecture delivered by Stephen Norris Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party and board member of Transport for London at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne 7 December 2000.

(4)

(5)

(6) "The view taken in this appraisal is that, as a general point, seeking to increase the capacity available to road users by adding to the size of the road system is a terminally inefficient approach as it will tend to add to the need and demand for road use, worsening rather than solving the problems.  The effect will be to decrease average levels of accessibility by encouraging (users) to choose locations reliant upon car use and damaging the ability to provide public transport services.
      "Road building is likely to be divisive in social terms with all the disadvantages falling most heavily on certain sections of the population, particularly the young and old and the least well off.
      "The economic advantages of road building are at least debabtable as the long term consequences of an economy increasingly dependent upon the current pattern and economic structure of road use may be an inflexible and vulnerable economy".
      Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1, Sustainability Appraisal of the Proposed Changes to Draft RPG1, Final Report, Baker Associates, May 2001, Appendix I, p. 78).

(7) SACTRA (1999) Transport and the Economy, London: The Stationary Office. Summary available online: http://www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/sactra/index.htm

(8) Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1) Incorporating Secretary of State's Proposed Changes April 2001.

      In particular "ACCESSIBILITY: 2.46 ...... reduce congestion, which can undermine regional and local competitiveness and exacerbate problems of pollution and noise ..... ". (Note: this indicates a necessary REDUCTION of traffic).

      And: "LOCATIONAL STRATEGY: 2.66 The future location of new development reflects the four major strategic themes of Regeneration, Opportunity, Accessibility and Conservation, within the overarching principle of sustainability.  This is achieved by: ........... Improving the balance between people, jobs and facilities in localised areas to reduce the need to travel...."

      Note that RPG1 fully accepts that "Accessibility" and "travel" are not only not the same thing: they are opposite concepts and tend to defeat one another (2.45).

(9) Eg: DETR Guidance on Preparing Regional Sustainable Devlopment Frameworks February 2000.

      In particular "...... (Regional Transport Strategies) ...... Should integrate transport with land-use planning at the regional and sub-regional level through locational and other policies, for example, parking and demand management that reduce reliance on the private car and encourage environmentally-friendly modes".

(10) Note that waterside housing has the pernicious "ratchet" effect of making remaining waterside land still in commercial hands less easy to operate, and loss of maritime industry makes the River less viable for the remaining industry, due to fewer participants to share the cost of dredging and other services.

(11)

(12) This used to be the case with Mid Tyne Ferries Ltd which served landings at Walker and Wallsend respectively from its base at Hebburn.

(13) "I accept the point that an increase in capacity at the Tunnel will increase traffic in the vicinity.  However, findings resulting from the Cross-Tyne Study suggest that the Second Tunnel would not attract long-distance through traffic in either peak or off-peak period.  The main benefits deriving from the additional capacity are expected to be for local north-south cross-river-traffic, ie, residents and businesses in the immediate area".  Letter from Douglas Pigg, Director of Development Services, South Tyneside MBC to Stephen Hepburn MP in response to a letter to Stephen Hepburn from Paul Winch.

(14)

(15) Discussion at a PTA workshop.

(16) The distribution of open space in South Tyneside MBC is set out in "South Tyneside Unitary Development Plan Final Version April 2000" Table 11.1.  The Borough has more than the NPFO standard overall but some Wards are ill served in this regard. We submit that the River Don Linkway (11.11.1) is important both to local residents and to the Borough as a whole - it is indeed a tourist attraction - and the proposed new tunnel access roundabout and increased traffic on the appoach roads would much reduce the amenity of this section of the River Don Linkway.

     Likewise the Hebburn-to-Pelaw Riverside Park is an existing Linked Open Space extending to Heworth in fact if not designation - it is wider, more secluded and more spectacular than the River Don Linkway so that the UDP safeguarding of the River Don Linkway should apply equally to the Hebburn-to-Pelaw Riverside Park.

     We note with dismay however that the Findus factory site (2.0 ha) safeguarded in the UDP as part of the Riverside Park (RL7.1.i) has already been built on. We see this as another poor augury for the rest of the Park (also see paragraphs (F) above).

(17)

(18) Eg: "Encouraging walking: advice to local authorities" DETR March 2000.

     "Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/00 "Framework for a local walking strategy" DETR June 2000.