Road Clippings Jan '98Road Clippings Jan '98Price tag 'could halt road' (T&A 30/1/98)
Urban smog kills 24,000 Britons every year (Independant, 13/1/98)
Traffic emissions and Council omissions (T&A, 13/1/98)
Rush hour 'is now a crawl at 20mph' (T&A 13/1/97)
By-pass must take all traffic away from town (Aire Valley Target, 8/1/98)
End the agony (Aire Valley Target, 8/1/98)
Business chiefs press for relief road go-ahead (T&A 8/1/98)
(T&A 8/1/98)
Bradford bosses are urging the Government to push ahead with the Bingley relief road. A Bradford Chamber of Commerce survey found that half the firms involved wanted the Government to put the road back on the agenda.
Controversial plans for a bypass for Bingley were left in the air last summer by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.
Now Chamber of Commerce members say upgrading the road will boost their businesses. Chamber president John Watson said today: "We are adamantly in favour of the Bingley relief road. The Chamber is the main organisation campaigning from the point of view of local business."
He said there were three reasons for the Chamber's support.
"The first is that the business communities in the Keighley and Skipton area are suffering economic damage because of the bottleneck in Bingley which most of their goods have to get through," he said.
"The second is that traffic congestion and fumes are a far bigger environmental problem than the environmental ones people are protesting about."
He said the third reason for protesting was because the Bingley bottleneck prevented business people living in the Skipton area from getting to places of employment. Members want the Government to change its mind on future plans for the road as Bingley town centre is so often congested.
More than 100 businesses took part in the survey into Chamber members' views on local transport. The survey also showed that 90 per cent of the bosses said road congestion caused problems for their business, while 81 per cent said local road improvements would improve their ability to compete.
The full results of the survey will be made known in mid-January and be passed on to the British Chambers of Commerce. The national organisation is carrying out an assessment of concerns about transport from businesses.
(Letters, Aire Valley Target, 8/1/98)
Dear Sir - On receiving a recent copy of the Target I wish to refer to Sarah Walsh's article. 1 cannot believe the unmitigated rubbish that is being spouted regarding the pollution figures relating to the so called 'relief road' for Bingley. If as is claimed the daily traffic figures are going to fall from 30,000 to 7,000 would someone pray tell me where the other 23, 000 traffic movements are going to go, supposedly on the new road, a road that for approximately half of its length runs alongside and within two or three hundred yards of the existing road! Another point to consider is that if this new road somehow magically gives birth to more traffic simply because it has been built, as we are led to believe happens, doesn't that in effect mean then that the traffic movements on both of the roads will increase to a total of above 30,000?
And how I wonder are the people in the solicitors offices, the charity shop, estate agents and the copy shop on Park Road going to react when they have a major road either side of them both producing even more noise and fumes than it is claimed are produced at present?
It was heart-warming to see recently letters from people who like myself seem to be the only ones with a modicum of common sense regarding this debacle of a road scheme. No doubt it is the advent of these letters that has provoked the recent statistics quoted 'm the aforementioned article, statistics that in reality mean nothing, because if you manipulated, juggled and fiddled them enough a trained chimp could prove that with statistics the impossible is probable. I have said before that the so called 'anti road' lobby is not against the need for a road at all.
They like all of us want an answer and a quick one to the problem, they just don't want THIS road to be built. I think it is common sense, something that appears to be sadly lacking in certain quarters of the charming little town when it comes to so called planning.
What is needed is a BY-PASS ... by-pass ... get it ... that takes the traffic AWAY from the town... and not through it on a different track.
Yours in frustration,
A J Ambridge, Primrose Bank, Gilstead, Bingley
(Letter, Aire Valley Target, 8/1/98)
Sir - There can be few of your. readers who disagree with Graham Carey's recent comments on the menace of the motor car and its impact on our environment.
Unfortunately it is not the motor car but the acquisitive society in which we live which is to blame.
More and more cars pour onto our roads each year. The problem is unlikely to go away. The notion that investment in public transport will.solve the problem comes from Cloud Cuckoo Land. Bus and rail transport cannot compete with the motor car or commercial vehicles for speed and convenience.
We sincerely hope that Chris Leslie is successful in obtaining the go-ahead for the relief road and end the stagnation in Bingley.
Jim Stephenson, Chairperson,
Bingley Enviromnental StudyGroup, Primrose Lane, Gilstead, Bingley.
by JOANNE EARP (T&A 13/1/97)
Drivers in Bradford are taking their foot off the pedal according to a new report - but the city centre 'go slow' is happening for all the wrong reasons. Latest statistics from Friends of the Earth show increased congestion and gridlocked roads have led to a drop in traffic speeds. Now green campaigners are urging motorists to make the switch to environmentally-friendly modes of transport before the city pays the price of increased pollution.
Friends of the Earth monitored 24 areas outside London. Bradford and Leeds experienced a fall in traffic speeds of 2mph to 2Omph during both peak and off-peak travel times.
Frank Pennycook, West Yorkshire spokesman for Friends of the Earth, said: "This latest report is bad news for everyone in Bradford. Congestion is getting worse and that has the knock-on effect of increasing pollution and illness - the campaign to reduce traffic really has become a matter of life and death."
Bradford Council says traffic across the district is increasing by about two per cent a year, and it cannot build roads to accommodate that figure. A Council survey showed the average number of vehicles per day entering the central business area of Bradford in 1993 was 178,980. By 1995 that figure had risen to 185,080.
Councillor Phil Thornton, chairman of the Council's highways subcommittee, said the traffic congestion problem must be addressed now. Coun Thornton (Lab, Shipley East, said: "There has been an increase in traffic, particularly over the last ten years. The Council is constantly looking at ways of trying to improve traffic movement to make the city centre a congestion-free zone.
"We have to set about encouraging people not to use their car."
The Road Traffic Reduction Bill, which seeks to cut the number of vehicles using Britain's roads, will be discussed by Parliament at the end of this month.
Dr Ruth Gellettlie, a consultant in public health with Bradford Health Authority, says its target of a ten per cent reduction by the year 2010 is not unrealistic. Dr Gellettlie said: "I lived in Copenhagen for 15 years where no-one uses a car. Their success shows that it can be done and I am absolutely certain that this target can be achieved."
(Letters, T&A, 13/1/98)
SIR - Much bunkum has been reported recently regarding the admittedly complex pollution effects of the proposed Bingley "relief " road (T&A, November 28 and December 1)
Your readers should beware the initial analysis reported was requested from Bradford Council by Chris Leslie MP. Bradford Council's team were asked to analyse only Main Street, Bingley, rather than the combined effects of the proposed road and Main Street, used speed values that were poor guesses, traffic flows and distributions inconsistent with the latest Highways Agency data, and out-of-date traffic forecasts.
For any analysis of the pollution effects of the proposed road to have substance, it needs to consider the additional 45 per cent traffic flow of diverted and generated trips that would be sucked through Bingley, the changing situation over at least the next 30 years, the full 5km length of the proposed road, the effects of additional traffic elsewhere the effects along the A650 within Bingley of half the traffic turning on or off it, the consequential redistribution of 13,000 vehicles daily throu .gh the streets of north Bingley, distinctions between the peak and off-peak traffic flows and technological change.
Alas, all this was omitted from the Bradford Council analysis. Spurious conclusions resulted.
Tony Plumbe, (chairman, Bingley Environmental Transport Association), Oakwood Drive, Bingley.
(Independent, 13/1/98)
Pollution caused mainly by traffic fumes kills up to 24,000 people prematurelyeach year. Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor, examines the findings of an official report which will increase the pressure on the Government to cut car use.
When the smog hangs heavy in the city it is poisoning the population that breathes it. The first report to measure the effects of air pollution in Britain concludes that its immediate effect is to hasten the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people and to trigger up to 24,000 hospital admissions each year.
This is certain to be an underestimate, because the report does not take account of the long-term effects of living in polluted cities. That is to be the subject of a further study.
The findings, by the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, a government advisory body, indicate a more serious problem than expected. Launching the document yesterday, Frank Dobson, the Secretary of State for Health, flanked by Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, and Sir Kenneth Calman, the Chief Medical Officer, said: "This report clearly confirms that air pollution damages health."
The findings triggered immediate demands for a cut in road traffic. The British Medical Association warned: "The grim reaper comes early on days of heavy air pollution." Friends of the Earth said the deaths figure was "extremely alarming" and the British Lung Foundation described it as "very serious."
Professor Stephen Holgate, chairman of the committee, said he had been surprised by the size of the effect. Speaking after the launch, he said that although the worst effects of pollution were on those who were frail, elderly or sick, there was growing evidence that healthy individuals were affected, too.
"Respiratory infections are getting worse. Air pollution reduces the capacity of the lung to combat viruses and possibly bacteria. Whether this is because of air pollution outside or inside the home needs to be sorted out," he said.
Sir Kenneth Calman sought to reduce alarm by emphasising that it was people who were already seriously ill with chronic respiratory disease who were most at risk. "They are not dying because of air pollution, they are dying because the contribution of air pollution to their ill health tips the balance."
He said they were not necessarily extra deaths or hospital admissions but ones that had been "brought forward", in some cases by a few days, but in other cases by a "somewhat longer period." He compared the effect with that of the cold in winter, which is linked with 30,000 extra deaths between October and March.
Mr Meacher said the findings contained a "major lesson" for transport. A white paper will set out proposals to reduce car use and technical measures to cut pollution. The AA, the motoring organisation, said drivers should not be made scapegoats for poor air quality and claimed that toxic exhaust gases were down 22 per cent compared with 1992.
The report, Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the UK, says pollution has three effects: many chemicals, such as sulphur dioxide and ozone, act as irritants to the bronchial tubes of the lung. Some, such as nitrogen dioxide and ozone, release substances that damage the lung lining. Together these cause inflammation, irritation and make the lung less efficient at fighting infection.
Particulates, the tiny particles produced mainly by the burning of diesel fuel, are the most dangerous. The smallest, known as PM10s, are drawn deep into the lungs where they are absorbed, causing damage to tissue as they are processed. They can trigger blood clots.
Professor Jon Ayres, a member of the committee, said it was likely that pollution had long-term effects on health but these remained to be proved. "What we would like to know is if you live in a town like London all your life, is it significantly shortened compared with living in a rural area. That is the big question."
By Sarah Walsh (T&A 30/1/98)
The new price-tag for the proposed Bingley relief road could scupper the scheme, campaigners fear.
The Telegraph & Argus revealed yesterday that the estimated costs of building the dual carriageway relief road have been revised upwards by a third.
Highways Agency officials now put the total cost at £64 million instead of £48 million, while advance works and preparations have already cost £23 million.
The Government will announce later this Spring whether Bingley's road scheme will get the go-ahead - but town campaigners are now worried it is being priced out of reach.
A Highways Agency spokesman said: "The previous cost given for the road was £48 million which was the cost of the works. The total cost is estimated at £64 million which represents the works, plus land purchase, preparation and supervision, consultancy and design fees. These are only estimates."
Philip Smith, chairman of the Better Bingley Campaign, said: "It's inevitable that procrastination by the Government is going to keep the costs going up and up and up. The budget has probably gone up a million times since it was first mooted in the 1940s. It's a lot of money but I'd still argue that a majority of Bingley people are in favour of getting the traffic out of Main Street."
Councillor Simon Cooke (Con, Bingley Rural) added: "We remain convinced this road is necessary. To the 50,000 to 60,000 people affected on a daily basis, it would be money well spent. The fact it is now more money is bad news if Government spending targets are tight."
During the past months of consultations, 100 letters have been received in support of the road scheme (in addition to a 10,000 signature petition) while 36 letters have been sent opposing it on environmental grounds.
Transport minister Glenda Jackson said: "Our consultation has emphasised the severity of the problems in Bingley and highlighted the strong feelings about the relief road scheme."
See Parliamentary Debate (Hansard)