|
|
|
Bob Walter on the A350 15 July 2003
This debate is about the misery of the thousands
of my poor blighted constituents who live along the A350 in One of the reasons why motorways are so badly congested by short and medium-distance traffic is that far too many A-roads are inadequate. The problem must be tackled in parallel with improvements to motorways and public transport, but improvements to A-roads will benefit most people and will be infinitely more cost-effective than the other two aspirations. An example of that is the A350 in Every day, 10,000 vehicles use the road. Drivers tolerate insufferable road conditions, driving at an average of just 33 mph at best—half the speed that they should reasonably expect. They have no alternatives. There are no railways, and there is no way that traffic can be diverted—nor should it be, as a high proportion of it is local traffic, which includes the small-business economy of the south-west going about its everyday activities. Ordinary people use the only means of transport that is available to them—their motor cars—to go to work, to go shopping, to take their children to school and to conduct their lives. The economy of the
area is underachieving because of the run-down in agriculture and because
companies are not investing there, largely because of inadequate infrastructure,
including roads. Yet the Government are imposing an increasing housing
commitment of some 5,000 houses on the north Some of the major treasures in Between Shaftesbury and Sturminster Marshall, 11 villages in a distance of 20 miles are polluted and afflicted by thousands of vehicles a day, including 42-tonne trucks with six axles, passing at 30–40 mph only a couple of feet from people's homes. Cottages and heritage-listed buildings alike are being shaken to bits. The A350 is so bad in parts that more than half the drivers—about 5,000 a day—find it more convenient to use the "rat run" of the C13, a country lane that fortuitously runs parallel to the main road. It is, however, no safer, and as a country lane it is, of course, inadequate for the size and weight of modern traffic. The existing A350 road severs villages and prevents people from being able to walk to their neighbours and children from walking to their friends. Overall, the A350 renders these villages "non-communities" with no personal contact, very few amenities, and no or scant public transport. They are cold, empty dormitories. The noise and smells in these villages and small-town environments are horrific. The risk of accidents and damage to homes, for which there is no public recompense, is high and occurs weekly. Fortunately or, at risk of sounding perverse, unfortunately, there have been few fatalities. There are overpowering traffic, economic, social and environmental reasons to invest in a new and improved road rather than in the existing A350 road. Let us therefore consider the case for a solution and the current state of the proposals. The case is clear: the volume, weight and speed of motor vehicles in the villages in the A350-B3081-C13 corridor between Shaftesbury and Sturminster Marshall are dangerous and damaging hazards to people and the environment. There is a need for traffic control measures in
the villages in the short term, but however successful they might be, they do
not obviate the need for a series of properly designed and constructed bypasses
that are sensitive to local needs and the environment. The impact on through
traffic on existing communities in the corridor is unacceptable. Current
Government policies concentrate development pressure within the principal urban
areas, so existing problems are likely only to be exacerbated. The case for a
proper, purpose-built bypass was first proposed by The "traffic
in We have passed that date. Two major road schemes
have been proposed for this corridor. The first is the Melbury Abbas bypass. The A350 is an important link in the primary road
network between centres of economic activity in south Traffic levels have increased since 1995, and
future planning policies are likely to focus more development in the south-east However, the authorities decided that for the structure plan period—up to 2011—it was appropriate to propose improvements on a smaller scale to those previously proposed, which could and should include a bypass. Importantly, however, longer-term options would depend on the outcome of the proposed multi-modal study on the routes between the south coast and the M4/M5, including the A350 corridor, which had been proposed at that time by the south-west regional planning conference. South of Blandford is the equally important
proposal for the Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury and Sturminster Marshall bypass.
The issues concerning that bypass are similar to those concerning Melbury Abbas.
This scheme, together with the northern section that I have described, is
currently the county's second highest priority, and is contained in the
structure plan, the north I am concerned that the Government office for the
south-west believes that The current year's annual settlement for
integrated transport in It should be stressed that the integrated transport allocations made through the local transport plan are generally low or medium-cost schemes, identified in the plan for meeting Government-led targets on road safety, encouraging alternative forms of transport, and improving accessibility in rural areas. The funding is used to address the main issues raised through best value and local transport plan consultations. Funding for major projects costing more than £5
million—such as the project in question—is different. Any improvement
schemes in the A350 corridor would fit into that category. Conventionally, such
schemes have been funded in the form of a 50 per cent transport supplementary
grant, and 50 per cent. basic credit approvals. Either way, the funding has to
be bid for and allocated as part of the local transport plan process. In
previous LTP rounds, local authorities were generally limited to one major
scheme per authority, and To achieve success in the bidding process, the
project must meet Government criteria and have the support of the Government
office for the south-west. That office has consistently failed to provide the
policy context or support for schemes in that corridor. Will the Minister
acknowledge the need for the scheme, abandon the arbitrary nonsense of allowing
only one major scheme per county at any one time, and instruct the Government
office for the south-west to move forward with I was perturbed by the figure that the Minister gave for the number of vehicles using the road, because even the Government office for the south-west acknowledges that the figure is in excess of 9,000 vehicles a day. That was what its representatives said when I had a meeting with them two weeks ago. Perhaps the Minister has picked a particular stretch to mention, but there are two roads, the A350 and the C13, which run parallel. |
| Bob Walter MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA Tel: 02072196981 / Fax: 0207219 2608 / Constituency Office: Tel: 0845 123 2785 email: walterr@parliament.uk |