Resources

A.      A new tunnel would increase traffic generally and make access to the tunnel through local streets harder. In due course a new tunnel would clog up unless traffic increase is reversed. The best way to reverse traffic increase in North and South Tyneside is to abolish the new tunnel proposal.

Q.      Cars waiting at the present tunnel pour out exhaust. If they were moving they wouldn't.

A.      Cars pour our exhaust everywhere they go; the more cars the more exhaust; and increasing car numbers create more congestion elsewhere in the neighbourhood.

Q.      A new road through the Hebburn-to-Pelaw Riverside Park would ease traffic on Victoria Road, Hebburn, and on the Felling by-pass, so obviously is a good thing.

A.      A new road would attract new traffic and be self-defeating. The questioner here obviously places perceived convenience arising from car use as being more important than open space currently free of traffic disturbance. You can "enjoy" traffic nearly everywhere in the Borough: places free of traffic, however, are priceless. Let us hang on to the two such sites we have (the other being the Leazes, although, even there, a road intrudes).

Q.      Why does the Alliance not make detail criticisms of the environmental effects of the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel construction technique?

A.      Because we don't want a tunnel at all.

Q.      Why reopen the debate on whether other crossing options might be better than a tunnel from Jarrow to North Shields?

A.      In our view no debate has occurred. The decision was made by the present tunnel promoters without consulting non-government organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. It is probable also that the terms of the commissioned studies somewhat prejudged their conclusions (few "studies" are impartial). For instance the gradients required for alternative crossings depend entirely on what assumptions the engineers were allowed to make concerning the route. The assumptions could be changed, and new technology for instance enables trains to tackle greater gradients.
Also, Alliance members wish to emphasise the need to reduce journeys.

Q.      We have been told for years, through the media, at talks and via many leaflets, that a new tunnel "will" be built. Why get in the way?

A.      This is a misuse of language and, in our view, public funds.. The tunnel can only be built if many quite difficult criteria are met, and a Public Inquiry, if called, gives its approval. So the tunnel promoters should in every case be saying not "when", but "if".

Q.      This proposal has been around for years and millions of pounds have been spent on studies. Why has the Alliance only recently reared its multiple heads to oppose the scheme?

A.      To the best of our knowledge none of the members of the Alliance were invited to the original or subsequent consultations. Even the consultations for the Environmental Impact Assessment, required to be presented by the PTA to the Secretary of State under the Transport and Works Act, excluded all current members of the Alliance. That is despite their being the national bodies representing the main environmental issues of relevance to the Assessment. (The RSPB was consulted).