House of Commons adjournment debate (Wed 28 January, 1998)

Bingley Relief Road

1 pm

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the A650 Bingley relief road scheme, which has been debated in my constituency for longer than I have been alive. As I grew up in Bingley, the issue was constantly present. I walked to school along the Bingley main street for many a year having to breathe in and live with the choking fumes from the traffic that was spewing out emissions, so no one is more familiar than I with the congestion problems faced by Bingley, and no one is more aware of the need for the completion of the relief road scheme.

Since the general election, when I was pleased to be elected to represent Shipley, I have been involved in discussions with colleagues from the Bradford district, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). Although she cannot be here today, she supports the completion of the relief road.

To a large extent, today's debate was prompted by a 10,000-signature petition, which I have passed on to the Secretary of State, asking for the scheme to be completed as soon as possible. I pay tribute to some of the scheme's most forceful advocates: Philip Smith from the Better Bingley campaign, who organised the petition; Mark Rand and others from Bingley Civic Trust; Alan Whetton and Jim Stephenson from the Bingley environmental study group; and some of the Bingley councillors, including Eileen Sinclair and Jim Flood.

Many others have been pushing for the scheme's completion for many decades. Local people cannot believe that the scheme has been in the offing for so long, yet has never really been completed. That is the point I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am not asking for a new start to a new road; I ask only that the scheme be completed, because it has already been constructed to a large extent.

There is an enormous amount of traffic in the area, and the scheme is designed to take traffic away from the Bingley main street. Bingley used to be a small market town, but now forms part of the Bradford urban conurbation. It is located in a narrow, constricted, high-sided valley where most of the existing roads converge. That has created many problems because of the volume of traffic trying to squeeze through such a small geographical area.

The scheme consists of 5 km of dual carriageway. The local authority's study on the capacity of the new relief road concludes that, given the existing traffic flows and the rat runs on either side of the valley, the new scheme will not significantly increase the volume of traffic. Capacity will be sufficiently increased to relieve congestion in the town and ameliorate the problem of rat running, but, as a trans-Pennine route, the new road will not attract an increased amount of traffic.

Work has already been done on the scheme. Indeed, about £23 million has been spent: £6.5 million on the compulsory purchase of land and property; £6.2 million on diverting a canal and building a new bridge over Park road; £3.5 million on retaining walls and sewers; £3.3 million on a new aqueduct; and £3.5 million on a new railway bridge. That is an enormous sum. A roadway has been created where the relief road is due to go and much of it is simply waiting for a tarmac topping so that it can be used.

Bingley has suffered dereliction, decay and decline. The town centre has been blighted for a long time because congestion has put off most shoppers, and the retail industry has seen a steady and steep decline. Vacant premises have been boarded up in the town centre and along the route through the valley. The town has experienced chronic economic decline, compounded by the recession but undoubtedly accelerated by the congestion in the centre of Bingley.

The Government's roads review was correct to focus on accessibility, the impact of schemes on the economy, safety, environmental improvement and an integrated public transport strategy. On all five criteria, the Bingley relief road scores highly. First, on accessibility, according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, traffic flows are extremely high--38,000 vehicles a day. The A650 is the busiest A-road in the Yorkshire and Humber region after the A1, so I hope that the Government will see fit to give the scheme priority. It would provide improved local access to the town centre, allowing residents to move about more freely. Currently, their options are restricted by the substandard road network in the district.

The relief road would also improve links across the district between the large town of Keighley and the city of Bradford. It would ensure that those two parts of the same district council were properly linked.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in trying to get the Government to support the relief road. Its effect will be dramatic not just on Bingley but on the whole Bradford district. Its completion would be an ideal opportunity to get away from the environmental damage caused by the current congestion and to develop investment opportunities in that corridor of Bradford city, which suffers from high unemployment.

In my constituency, development is concentrated around the M606 and the M62 motorways. We are overdeveloped and would like some of the prosperity, investment and development transferred to Bingley and Keighley. The completion of the Bingley relief road would help to achieve that.

Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those facts.

Secondly, the economic aspects of the relief road scheme form much of the argument in its favour. Firms such as Schindler's Lifts and Peter Black's in Keighley have reduced the number of employees, and many other firms have been put off locating in the district. Some have moved out, citing transaction costs and extra expenses caused by delays as reasons for doing so--Peter Black's said that it amounted to millions of pounds over the years. It is a significant deterrent to business.

The third criterion in the Government's roads review is safety. It is important to stress that aspect, because there is a vast amount of pedestrian-vehicle interaction on the Bingley main street. Cars and people mill about and mix together. Each year, there are an average of 35 accident casualties, some of which are quite serious. The Bingley relief road would remove much of the traffic, so the number of casualties would be significantly reduced. It would also improve access by the emergency services to Bingley and the villages on each side of the valley: ambulances and fire services have had difficulty getting to those areas.

The fourth criterion is the environmental impact of schemes. The Bingley relief road would not only help to regenerate the town centre environment and to rejuvenate the shopping and community areas, but would lessen dramatically town centre pollution.

A recent study undertaken by Bradford council's environmental protection division used a statistical model of emission levels to date to make projections for the future. Emission levels are at their minimum at 45 to 50 mph. Because of the congestion, traffic goes very slowly through the town. If the constant stop-start, stop-go of traffic could be ended, expected pollutants would be reduced massively. Nitrogen dioxide levels, which are currently above the European Union's health guidelines, would be reduced to a much safer level; particulates would be reduced significantly; and carbon monoxide emissions and benzene levels would be halved.

Local general practitioners and doctors often call Bingley and the Aire valley "asthma valley": the Bingley chest has been a local phenomenon for a long time. I am keen to stress the air pollution benefits that would be gained from the completion of the Bingley relief road.

Concerns have also been raised about the Bingley south bog. However, the Highways Agency has amended its design plans significantly, and has mitigated many of the problems. English Nature, the countryside service and the ecological advisory service have said that they are comfortable with the proposed scheme. According to the Department's own ecological study of the Bingley south bog, it contains no nationally rare or scarce plants, no plant species from the Department's red data book, no protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and none of the 315 plants on the Nature Conservancy Council's nationally scarce plants list.

In weighing up the environmental factors in the Bingley district, it is important to study air quality in the town and other physical factors. I strongly believe that the environmental benefits far outweigh other considerations.

The fifth criterion relates to the contribution that a scheme can make to an integrated public transport system. Moving traffic from the Bingley main street on to the relief road would create a potential thoroughfare for public transport that would link the whole of the Aire valley, and would provide an integrated public transport network across the district. Buses could be timetabled. That problem is not often mentioned, but the bus route to Airedale general hospital has been cancelled because of the difficulties of timetabling a service in such a congested area.

There is a point at which relieving congestion creates new possibilities for public transport. It facilitates cycle routes and town centre pedestrianisation, and would aid the "park and ride" facilities at Bingley and Crossflatts, where there is an electrified railway that should be used more.

Everywhere in the district has transport difficulties: Shipley and Saltaire also face problems. However, without the completion of the Bingley relief road--the link that has been missing for so long--we will face congestion and traffic problems for many years to come. My constituents find it unbelievable that the scheme has taken so long. The route has been decided, but we are waiting for the Government to finish the job.

Given the benefits of the scheme to the community and to the environment, its contribution to public transport improvements in the town, and the economic and road

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): It is usual in Adjournment debates to congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I think that congratulations should be offered to the residents of Shipley on having returned my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to the House. He has raised this issue, which is of particular importance to his constituents, not only this morning but virtually ever since he walked through the Member's Entrance. He has devoted a great deal of time, effort and energy to drawing to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Roads the need for the Bingley relief road, as perceived in his constituency.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his generosity in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) to intervene, and on being so particular in underlining the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) endorses what he has said.

The issue is clearly of great importance to the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley presented the case to the House succinctly and in detail. I understand that, only last week, he made an able presentation to my noble Friend when she met hon. Members from constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside to discuss the Government's roads review.

Before I deal with the particular issue of the Bingley relief road, it may be helpful if I said a little about how the roads review fits into the overall thrust of the Government's transport policies. Our work to develop an integrated transport policy provides the immediate context for the roads review. The backdrop to that fundamental review of transport policy is a candid recognition that we cannot carry on as at present. The predicted growth of traffic and the consequent congestion are unsustainable: the environmental, economic and social implications are unacceptable. However, the appropriate response cannot be simply to hack away once again at the roads programme without taking any further action. We need to adopt a much broader view: we should examine all modes, and use broadly based criteria to assess schemes. One of the encouraging aspects of what is, we acknowledge, a hugely ambitious task is the degree to which there is consensus on the need for change.

We should examine the role of the motor vehicle in providing mobility in a more integrated transport system. Such a system should make the best use of each mode of transport. All options should be considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair, and takes into account from the outset safety, environmental, economic, accessibility and integration considerations--my hon. Friend touched on all five points. That must be done in such a way as to give us all confidence and, above all, in a way that is sustainable.

That is the context for the roads review, which is an integral part of our integrated transport policy work. It is about the role that trunk roads should play alongside other modes in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.

The issue that looms largest in the roads review is undoubtedly congestion. We have three broad options: making better use of the existing infrastructure; managing demand; and providing new infrastructure.

Making better use of the existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It may also be the least painful. Making better use of the network may help to provide a much-needed breathing space, but there must be some doubts about whether it can cater for more than a small fraction of the forecast increase in demand. That means that we have to look very seriously at the other, harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure.

Managing demand is a vast topic which cuts across all modes. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, through land use planning, and by changing the way in which we live, work and enjoy our leisure; it must also include an assessment of the extent to which we can encourage a shift to other modes, and, inevitably, it involves the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms, unpopular though they may be. At the very least, managing demand is about changing human behaviour, so it follows that it is a very difficult thing to do. I am sure we could readily achieve a consensus that, as a society, we should use cars less; making it happen is another matter.

That brings us to the third and last option--providing new infrastructure. That is also a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Circumstances vary from case to case. In some cases, a new or widened road may be the only option to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems caused by traffic and congestion in a particular community. There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options, and to that end we have carried out a regional consultative exercise led by the Government offices for the regions. We have looked, region by region, at the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme that we inherited from our predecessors. We regard the existence of a scheme in the inherited programme as prima facie evidence of a transport problem.

The aim of the regional consultations is to give us a view on which problems deserve the greatest priority. Once we have identified the priority problems, the next step is to ensure that all the credible options are properly evaluated. There is no presumption that a road scheme is the right solution, or that a scheme in the roads programme is the best option. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a short-term investment programme, and a programme of studies to examine the remaining problems. From that, we will develop the medium and longer-term investment programme.

The short-term programme will include both measures to make better use of the existing network, and new construction schemes. The new construction schemes are likely to be schemes from the inherited roads programme that address priority problems in a way that is consistent with our integrated transport strategy. We will not put schemes into that programme if it is clear that there is an alternative option that could obviate the need for the existing schemes. The right thing to do in those cases would be to study the alternatives more fully before reaching decisions.

Let me turn to the specific issue of the A650 Bingley relief road. The development of road improvement proposals in the Aire valley has a long and controversial

history, which--as it is part of the personal history of the hon. Member for Shipley--I will not rehearse today. However, the Bingley relief road is one of a number of schemes originally designed to provide a good route between the settlements in Airedale, the centre of Bradford and, beyond that, the motorway network. Two of those schemes have been completed: the dual carriageway sections between Kildwick and Beechcliffe and between Victoria park and Crossflatts, which opened to traffic in 1988. As well as the Bingley relief road scheme, the roads programme inherited from our predecessors includes schemes to improve the A650 Hard Ings road in Keighley, and the A629 between Skipton and Kildwick.

Significantly, in previous reviews of the roads programme, schemes to provide a tunnel under Saltaire and to build an eastern bypass of Shipley have been withdrawn. Associated local authority road schemes to improve the route between Shipley and the centre of Bradford are also being reconsidered. The comprehensive strategy to improve the route as a whole has been reduced over the years, not least on financial grounds, and we have inherited a set of proposals to address local congestion, safety and environmental problems along the Airedale route.

The regional consultation undertaken as part of the roads review has emphasised the severity of the problems in Bingley, and highlighted the strong feelings about the relief road scheme--feelings which were underlined by what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bradford, South. The Government office has received about 100 letters in support of the proposals, and 36 opposing them. In addition, a 10,000-signature petition in support of the new road has been submitted.

The submissions supporting the scheme echo the points made by my hon. Friend, highlighting problems of congestion, road safety, pollution, commercial decline in the town centre, the need to encourage regeneration along the Aire valley and the extensive blight caused by the protection of the road line. On the other hand, a number of representations from environmental groups have argued strongly against the building of the relief road. They claim that it would generate additional traffic and shift traffic bottlenecks further down the route to Saltaire and Shipley, and that it would therefore not solve the current problems of congestion and pollution.

We shall want to give careful consideration to all the representations in reaching a decision on the Bingley relief road. The decision must be firmly based on the principles of our integrated transport policy, which I outlined earlier. I fully recognise the serious existing problems of congestion, road safety and environmental damage, which need to be addressed. We need to consider the contribution that demand management and improved public transport can make to the solution of the problems in the corridor that we are discussing. Indeed, I think that there is a great deal of common ground between different sides in the debate about the future of the relief road scheme. Many of those arguing for the construction of the new road recognise that a package of measures to improve public transport is also necessary.

I fully appreciate that the residents and business community in Bingley have been looking forward to the construction of the relief road for many years, and I am sensitive to the argument that £23 million has already been spent on advance works to create the path for the

new bypass, but we must assess fully the justifications for spending a further £64 million to complete the scheme, to assess the proposal within the new appraisal framework that we are developing against the five criteria set out in the roads review consultation document, and to assess the priority to be given to the scheme against other schemes that are candidates for the short-term programme. In our deliberations, we must consider solutions in an integrated way, assessing carefully the contribution of different modes, and looking at the problems of Bingley in the broader context of the strategies required for the route as a whole.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. He put the case for the construction of the Bingley relief road very forcefully. I am sure he will appreciate that, until the review of the roads network has been completed, I cannot tell him what the future of the scheme will be. The results of the review are expected to be published later this year, but we will examine all my hon. Friend's representations, and those of others, in detail.

Back to main story