21 May 2012
HEYSHAM – M6 LINK ROAD TO GO UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
As the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) begins its examination of the case for and against the proposed Heysham to the M6 Link Road , the opposition has assembled a strong and what it hopes will be a persuasive case against the road.
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) has been the principal objector to the road for the past seven years, and has now completed the final touches to the arguments to be placed before the Examiner in the case. Written representations were submitted to the IPC before the 8th May deadline.
TSLM has been joined by respected national organisations Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Campaign for Better Transport (CBT), and regional transport specialists North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR), who agree that this road scheme is the wrong way forward, and against national policy.
TSLM and its allies have taken a wide overview of the proposals put forward by the road’s promoter, Lancashire County Council, but are placing particular emphasis on a number of specific strands of its argument against the road. Members of TSLM, its allied organisations and individual experts, have placed some of these strands under the microscope and have put forward what they consider to be a highly compelling case against the road on a number of important grounds including
· failure to reduce congestion and traffic levels in Lancaster
· failure to bring the hoped-for jobs
· minimal journey time savings
· damage to the environment and wildlife,
· damaging impact on local people
· increase in harmful pollution
“£41 million per mile for a road that doesn’t solve congestion or bring jobs is not Value for Money,” says David Gate, Chair of TSLM. “This road should be rejected: there are far better alternatives that are cheaper and would really work.”
The examination by the IPC will continue over the summer and end in October.
Representations include:
TSLM (i) Heysham Port
(ii) Economic impacts
(iii) Flood risk
(iv) Environmental Impact
CPRE: Andy Yuille (i) Landscape & Green Belt
(ii) Complementary measures
NW TAR & CBT: (i) Transport Appraisal
(ii) Traffic growth, forecasts & national policy
Alan James: Inadequate Assessment of Alternatives
John Whitelegg (i) Traffic Modelling & Forecasting
(ii) Climate Change
Tim Hamilton-Cox: Peak Oil
Jo Guiver: Sustainability
Halton Residents’ Group
Representations can be viewed at
April 2012
TSLM received a boost when national campaign groups joined it to present a joint case against the revised Heysham M6 Link Road at the coming examination. Respected national groups Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) joined TSLM for the first IPC meeting on 3 April. "We have long argued that this destructive scheme doesn't solve congestion or bring jobs" said David Gate, Chair of TSLM, "but there are far cheaper
alternatives that do. Now, respected national groups CPRE & CBT will argue that this scheme is against national policy too." Written representations must be submitted by 8 May.
1. Lancashire leads the way
The Heysham M6 Link Road is the costliest of all Britain 's local authority road schemes, it was revealed this week, in figures released by the Department for Transport. At £41 million per mile, it beats its nearest rival hands down. (That's £25,677 per metre, or £648 per inch, if you prefer). Second-placed Kingskerswell in Devon can only manage £19,582 per metre.
Yet plans are full steam ahead to fund this top-priced scheme. Yes, this is in the same universe as the one where councils such as Lancashire are cutting services, everything from youth services to residential care homes and many jobs, cuts that damage people’s lives.
What’s more, Lancashire County Council has earned the promise of some government funding by increasing its own contribution to £12.3 million, and accepting all cost overruns. But we believe that the real cost of the HM6L we be at least £17 million more than currently admitted, all of which will end up being paid by the Council.
For cutting essential services and for spending on the country’s most costly road scheme, Lancashire leads the way.
Read the full story at <link>
Dates slip yet again
LCC’s latest “Update” (September 2011) shows that dates have slipped yet again – the application to IPC will be in “late autumn”, not September: it looks like October – November. That’s after the start date slipped again – last February it was “October 2012, now it’s “summer 2013”.
From the Council reports, you would think that everyone who attended the “consultation” was in favour of the scheme, apart from a few trees here or there, and they’re working diligently to give us what we want.
But everyone we have met report that the atmosphere was hostile, and the vast majority of people who attended were dead against the scheme. As Tom Askew has pointed out (see “some recent letters”), LCC’s answers to written letters show a pompous “we know best” attitude.
The Council is keen to point out that most people “understand the scheme. We agree – they understand how harmful and useless it is.
And they trash the Western Route – twice the length, twice the cost, attracts less traffic, poor value for money. Hold on a minute – it was the Council’s preferred route, through thick and thin, right up to 2004. TSLM doesn’t agree with the western route, but certainly all alternatives should be investigated.